Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this Day's Sitting. Whereupon Sir DENNIS HERBERT, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

BRITISH MUSEUM.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this prayer:
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge as to your House shall seem meet."—[King's Recommendation signified"]

Mr. Thorne: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to come to Parliament for some expenses in connection with this Petition?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, that will come under Class IV (2) of the Civil Estimates.

Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill.

southern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (MECHANISED TRANSPORT CORPS).

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Minister of Labour the position of the members of the Mechanised Transport Corps as regards registration; whether it is taken into account that many of them have already been serving since the out break of war in France and elsewhere overseas, mostly in a voluntary capacity; and whether it is proposed to take those serving at home away from their present work?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Members of this Corps are required to register when their age group is called upon to register. Arrangements are being made under which women who are doing full-time voluntary work which is of importance to the war effort, and in which they cannot reasonably be replaced by older women, will not be called upon to take other work.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Does my right hon. Friend, when he speaks of voluntary work, include the work of persons in this Corps who are paid?

Mr. Bevin: If they are enrolled in the Corps and are at present under pay, it does not touch them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

LIGHT WORK.

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Minister of Labour whether any plan has been adopted for placing men of reduced industrial capacity in jobs, at ordnance factories and other establishments, that otherwise would be filled by men whose higher capacity would be thus wastefully employed?

Mr. Bevin: I am in communication with my right hon. Friends the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Minister of Supply, the Minister of Aircraft Production and the Secretary for Mines as to arrangements for employing men fit for light work, wherever it is possible for such men to replace men of higher industrial capacity in establishments under their control.

Mr. Mainwaring: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable resentment has been created during past months by able-bodied men being drafted into forms of employment that could have been filled by men of the class referred to?

Mr. Bevin: I have no knowledge of that matter, but if there are particulars, I shall be glad to have them.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one factory 100 moulders were dismissed, and dilutee people with not half their experience were brought in by the management?

Mr. Bevin: That does not arise on this Question.

Mr. James Griffiths: What about superannuation?

Mr. Bevin: That point is being carefully considered.I have already submitted to the Mines Department the point that a lot of these men are being kept away from the mines for surface work, not purely on the ground of incapacity, but to some extent on the ground of extra insurance involved. I suggest that, in the extreme difficulty of man-power, the position could be met by an extra insurance premium, and that insurance companies should not be allowed to prohibit men from returning to work.

WOMEN.

Mr. Mainwaring: asked the Minister of Labour, why it is that hundreds of women residing in a certain area, having been urged to volunteer for work at an ordnance factory and, having been interviewed and accepted at their respective exchanges, are now informed that no more women are to be engaged from this area?

Mr. Bevin: Recruitment of further women from the area to which I presume my hon. Friend refers has been temporarily suspended, pending the provision of additional transport facilities. My Department is co-operating with the Ministry of Transport in the matter.

Mr. Mainwaring: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of transport arrangements having been provisionally made and since suspended, thus accounting for the failure to give these women employment?

Mr. Bevin: If the hon. Member will give me particulars, I shall be glad to look into the matter. I took the view that it was

no use including women for such long journeys as those involved unless transport arrangements were provided, and I insisted upon the transport arrangements being provided first.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many women are hampered in offering themselves for National Service by the difficulty of ascertaining the essential facts as to qualifications for, and conditions of, service or of training for the various forms of service, such as the three forces auxiliary to the Armed Forces, the nursing service, the Women's Land Army and munition work; and will he, therefore, issue a single leaflet or pamphlet summarising these essential facts?

Mr. Bevin: Women desiring information about opportunities for war work should ask the Employment Exchange for advice, where leaflets describing the work and conditions in the various auxiliary services are also available. I do not think this information could usefully be compressed into a single leaflet.

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that women, especially those in the country, find the greatest difficulty in getting information about all the services, and that it would save an immense amount of time to the Employment Exchanges and everybody else concerned if the information could be made available? Will he consider a suggestion on this point?

Mr. Bevin: I have adopted a policy of arranging special interviewing machinery through which women can ask their questions and get their answers. When that machinery is in operation, I think it will prove far more effective than asking people to consider documents which they do not understand.

Miss Cazalet: Would it not be a good thing to set up a few permanent information centres, apart from the Employment Exchanges, to which women could go for information about employment?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, I am very anxious to keep this matter within the Employment Exchanges. I am sure I shall not be misunderstood when I point out that the Employment Exchange system was not primarily established for


what are known as the working classes. These are Employment Exchanges, and every citizen dealing with employment should go through exactly the same interviewing process, and then there will be a better understanding of what the Employment Department is for.

ENGINEERING AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to set up an advisory council to assist him in mobilising the man-power in the engineering and shipbuilding trades; and whether he can name the members of the committee?

Mr. Bevin: I am constantly in touch with the representatives of both sides of the engineering and shipbuilding industries and a formal advisory council seems to me to be unnecessary. I am, however, considering with the industries whether it would be useful to appoint small panels which could be a convenient means of discussing with representatives of my Department points arising from time to time.

Mr. Davidson: On a regional basis?

Mr. Bevin: No, I have been considering a national basis up to now, because I have to consider the national organisations for the unions and for the employers. Under the Essential Work Order, for the purpose of dealing with matters in the localities, I have already agreed to local committees being established.

MOTHERS, LONDON (CARE OF CHILDREN).

Miss Cazalet: asked the Minister of Labour what provision has been made in London for children under school age whose mothers are anxious to do war work?

Mr. Bevin: The circumstances of London are different from those of many provincial areas. I understand that in several areas on the outskirts of London the Ministry of Health are arranging for the establishment of day nurseries.

Miss Cazalet: Will my right hon. Friend consult with the President of the Board of Education with a view to using some of the infants' departments for children under five?

Mr. Bevin: I thank the hon. Lady for the suggestion.

LAUNDRY SERVICES

Sir Francis Fremantle: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that essential men and women are being transferred from laundries to other ser vices, thus endangering the laundry ser vices, vital for the health and efficiency of hospital, air-raid precautions centres, nursery-schools and other accommodation of evacuees, and of the Forces and general population; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Captain Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give special consideration to the reserve of a limited number of maintenance engineers and women employés of laundries in areas where a large influx of military and civil population has put a special strain on these essential services?

Mr. Bevin: I have given instructions that workers in the laundry service who cannot be spared should not be transferred by the Employment Exchanges to other employment. Furthermore, workers in this service who seek advice as to the desirability of their taking other work will be advised to remain in their present employment unless they are surplus to requirements. I do not think it is necessary to create a special reserve for this purpose.

Sir F. Fremantle: That being the case, will my right hon. Friend, in company with the Minister of Health, to whom I put down the Question originally, keep a watch over the position here, because it is vital to the health services, even if it does not fit in with the actual pattern of employment of the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Bevin: I will keep a close watch on it, but I am very anxious that these employers on their side shall bring the amenities in the laundries up to the standards of the Essential Work Order. There is a good deal of turnover in this industry in normal times. Therefore, I think it is essential, not merely to have people retained in the industry, but that if they are to stop there without disgruntlement, the conditions associated with them should be brought into line.

EX-SERVICEMEN (TRAINING).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour what provision is made for the provision of suitable work for those men


discharged from the Forces, and in whose cases no pension has been awarded; whether these provisions include training for work suitable to their capacity; and whether he will give details of any such scheme?

Mr. Bevin: If men discharged from the Forces, whether or not they are in receipt of pensions, will apply at the Employment Exchanges, every effort will be made to find them suitable employment, or, so far as they are suitable, to provide them with training under the existing training schemes. As indicated in the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Martin) on 3rd April, arrangements are being made to provide special courses of training for those who, because of disablement, cannot take up immediate employment or are not suitable for the ordinary training courses.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Minister of Labour, what action he proposes to take on the recent Report of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee on the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund as at 31st December last?

Mr. Bevin: Action has been taken to pay off the remaining debt of the Unemployment Fund as recommended by the Committee. The Committee are being invited to inquire into the Married Women's Anomalies Regulation and the waiting period in accordance with their suggestion that these questions should be investigated with reference to the aftermath of the war. Their further suggestion, in regard to the war-time relaxation of the waiting period and continuity rule in favour of persons thrown out of employment by direct enemy action, is being considered.

Mr. Davidson: Is the Minister aware that his Reply will bring great pleasure to the gallant minority that fought so well in this House on recent legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

MR. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a brochure giving

detailed recommendations, as to the reconstruction and improvement of air-raid protection services in areas which have not yet been heavily bombed, based upon the practical experience gained in areas which have?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane): To issue a brochure as suggested by my hon. Friend would not be a convenient way of achieving the object he has in mind. Fresh experience is gathered continually, and as soon as new lessons are learned the information is circulated to Regional and Local Authorities. In addition, the Inspector-General and his staff are in continual and close touch alike with raided areas and with areas not yet heavily raided, and are able by personal contact and effort to secure a development of the organisation of Civil Defence to meet the conditions likely to be created by current forms of attack.

Mr. Adams: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his Reply, it is a fact that in the North of England, the reconstruction of shelters—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is Question Time now.

Mr. Adams: May I complete my supplementary?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to make a statement. If he wishes to ask a Supplementary Question, he may.

Mr. Adams: Has the hon. Gentleman taken cognisance of what prevails in the North of England in the areas which have not been bombed? They are much behind the times as compared with those which have been bombed.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in some areas a small minority of householders are refusing to place sand or water outside their premises, thereby endangering their neighbours and causing discontent amongst the fire patrol volunteers; and whether he proposes to give local authorities power to enforce these precautions?

Mr. Mabane: While my right hon. Friend is aware that sand and water are not in all cases being placed outside their premises by householders, no instances of


deliberate refusal to do so, in cases where it seems necessary, have been brought to his notice. I shall be glad if my hon. Friend will give me particulars of such cases. My right hon. Friend would, however, prefer to rely upon an increasing measure of voluntary co-operation among the small minority described rather than to resort to compulsion in this matter at present. It may not always be practicable to adopt the precautions suggested.

Mr. Morrison: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that one person in a street can disturb the harmony and efficiency of the whole street fire-service by being awkward, and that no one has any authority to take any steps to make such a person fall into line?

PUBLIC-HOUSES (MUSIC LICENCES).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the excellent effect on the spirits of the people of Southampton after a heavy air-raid from the provision of music at public-houses; and whether he will circularise the licensing justices, with a view to a like provision being made elsewhere, especially on Sundays, when theatres and music halls are to remain closed?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been drawn to this matter, but if my hon. Friend will furnish me with information in his possession, I shall be glad to consider it. I understand that, generally speaking, the authorities responsible for granting licences for public music do not place any difficulties in the way of the provision of music in licensed houses, but this, of course, must depend on the suitability of the premises and other local circumstances. As my hon. Friend is, no doubt, aware, wireless sets are now very commonly installed in public houses.

Mr. Keeling: Has the Home Office not seen reports from the Ministry of Home Security in one of which was contained this statement about the good effect of music in public-houses in Southampton?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir; we certainly do see the reports, although we do not always concur in them.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the benefit of music in

conditions such as have existed in Southampton, I would like him to accompany me —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: rose—

NON-ENEMY ALIENS (RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Home Secretary whether local police throughout the country have now been given explicit directions as to the restrictions to be imposed upon Americans resident in their district; whether such Americans, having satisfied the police of their good faith, are allowed to travel more than five miles from their homes without a permit; and for what period is the curfew restriction relaxed in their favour?

Mr. Peake: Instructions have been given to the police that, in dealing with applications for permits and exemptions from the restrictions which in the interests of national security it has been found necessary to impose on aliens, liberal treatment should be given to persons in whose cases there is a presumption that their sympathies are with this country. The decision to grant a permit or exemption and the nature of such permit or exemption must depend on the circumstances of each individual case. The restriction upon travelling more than five miles from the registered address does not apply to aliens of non-enemy nationality.

INTERNEES.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information about the work to be given internees in the Isle of Man?

Mr. Peake: In addition to the various forms of employment available in connection with the interior economy of the camps, internees in the Isle of Man can volunteer for work on farms, or on land reclamation, or other similar schemes for which labour is required in the Island. Some industries such as watch-repairing; toy-making, etc., are also carried on in the camps, and it is hoped to increase the number of these industries.

Mr. Hannah: Can anybody who is interned in the Isle of Man definitely be promised labour if he wants it?

Mr. Peake: I should hardly care to give that definite undertaking, but the Home


Office have in the Island a full-time welfare officer, who is charged with the special duty of exploring every possibility for the employment of internees.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that women interned in the Isle of Man are allowed to write two 24-line letters and a postcard weekly only to their husbands interned in Australia; and will he abolish these restrictions so that these people can maintain a closer contact until they are reunited?

Mr. Peake: The restrictions to which my right hon. Friend refers are those applying generally to internees, but the women interned in the Isle of Man are allowed in addition to send one air-mail letter a month to any relative in Australia. The Commandant has also discretion to permit extra letters in special circumstances, and letters in excess of 24 lines, if necessary for sending business information. I think it would be difficult to extend these privileges.

Mr. G. Strauss: Is air-mail correspondence also restricted normally to 24 lines?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir; except in special cases where it is desired to send business information.

Mr. Silverman: What is the object of the restrictions on correspondence between internees and people in this country?

Mr. Peake: It' is entirely due to the requirements of the postal service.

Mr. Silverman: What is the necessity for censorship of correspondence between internees detained in this country and correspondents in this country?

Mr. Peake: That is a matter which has often been discussed in the House, and I can only refer the hon. Member to my previous statements.

Mr. McGovern: How is it that internees in Australia are refused permission to write to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise out of this Question.

DETENTIONS(ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Home Secretary which members of advisory committees appointed under Regulation i8b have resigned to date?

Mr. Peake: The Advisory Committee appointed, under the chairmanship of Mr. Norman Birkett, K.C., to hear objections by persons detained under Regulation i8b has now practically completed its work, and only a small number of cases remains to be heard. The opportunity has, therefore, been taken of reconstituting the Committee, which consisted of four separate Panels sitting practically continuously, as a smaller body which will meet as and when required to deal with such cases as arise. I will circulate the names of the present members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend would like to take this opportunity of expressing his appreciation of the very valuable public service which this Committee has rendered, and his thanks, which he has already conveyed individually to those members whose continued assistance will, under the new arrangements, no longer be required.

Sir I. Albery: While thanking my hon. Friend for the information which he has given me, may I point out that he has not answered my Question? I asked him whether any members of these committees have themselves of their own volition tendered their resignation?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir; as far as I am aware, no member has resigned from the Committee because he disagreed with the policy of that Committee. Some members have withdrawn because they found themselves unable to carry on the work required of them, but the body, which originally consisted altogether of some 22 members, now consists of nine.

Sir I. Albery: Is my hon. Friend unable to answer my Question? I asked what members of this Committee have resigned?

Mr. Peake: As I have explained, the Committee has been reconstituted, and some of the former members are not now on it. I will certainly circulate in the Official Report the names of those members who have been serving on the Committee but who will no longer do so in future.

ALIEN SEAMEN (SHORE FACILITIES).

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Home Secretary whether he will look into the serious restrictions placed on alien seamen and consider whether these can be substantially reduced, particularly in the case of seamen of allied nationality serving on boats which voyage regularly from and to ports exclusively in the British Isles?

Mr. Peake: My right hon. Friend sympathises with the view that every reasonable concession should be made to foreign seamen working in the allied interest and arrangements are already in force under which shore leave is freely granted to such seamen subject to certain essential safeguards. Steps have also been taken to facilitate the landing and embarking of alien seamen engaged exclusively in voyages between ports in Great Britain.

Sir R. Acland: Would it not be possible, seeing that these restrictions mean that the men cannot travel any distance home on leave, to give them a once-for-all examination and then allow them to move as freely as they want? They are in the war on our side, so why should we not treat them as we treat ourselves?

Mr. Peake: The question relates to alien seamen who, ex hypothesi, have not got any homes, but if the hon. Member will send me individual cases where difficulty is being encountered I will see what can be done to meet them.

Sir R. Acland: Is this practice of dealing with individual cases really fair on hon. Members? Would it not be right to make it a general matter that alien seamen serving exclusively from British ports should be given a once-for-all examination, and then have as much freedom as British seamen?

Mr. Peake: We have done a very great deal to free these people from unnecessary restrictions, but if there are still cases where difficulty is encountered, I will certainly look into them. However, I must have regard to the interests of national security.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is it fair to hon. Members to have to receive all these complaints and pass them on and get them settled satisfactorily? Why cannot the matter be dealt with generally?

FOOD-SHOP QUEUES(PHOTOGRAPHS)

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the chief constable of Sheffield has refused permission for a photograph to be taken of the queue at an egg shop in the Attercliffe Division; under what authority he is acting; whether this prohibition refers to the photographing of queues forming at food shops throughout the country; and what is the object of such a prohibition?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has made inquiries and is informed that the chief constable of Sheffield received an inquiry whether there was any objection to a photograph of a queue at an egg shop being taken, and expressed the opinion, in reply, that in present circumstances it was undesirable that such a photograph should be taken. My right hon. Friend agrees with this opinion. While there is no specific prohibition on the photographing of queues at food shops my hon. Friend will appreciate that such photographs might be put to improper use.

FIRE PREVENTION.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: asked the Home Secretary in what districts fire-fighting by staff and workmen is to be made compulsory on business premises?

Mr. Mabane: As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. Rostron Duckworth) on 26th February, particulars of the areas to which the Fire Prevention (Business Premises) Order, 1941, has been applied have already been published in newspapers, and Regional Commissioners have been requested to arrange for lists of these areas to be posted in public places. It would not be in the public interest to publish a collated list of areas to which the Order is applied. Whether the Order will need to be applied to other areas will depend on the future course of raiding.

Mr. Boyce: With regard to those districts where there appears to be some doubt as to whether the Order should be made, can the hon. Member concerned obtain an official statement on the subject from the Ministry of Home Security?

Mr. Mabane: Certainly.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Home Secretary whether he will define the responsibility of members of the Air Training


Corps as to fire-watching at their places of employment and also in the localities in which they live?

Mr. Mabane: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 9th April to my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).

Mr. Mander: Is my hon. Friend aware that many junior members of the A.T.C. are prevented from carrying out practices and attending lectures by fire-watching duties? Could not some consideration be given to the question of relieving them?

Mr. Mabane: No such cases have been brought to my notice. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me particulars of such cases.

BILLETING.

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Health whether, in cases where billeting officers have earmarked accommodation for civil evacuation or military purposes, the householders are in all cases informed of the nature of the call which may be made upon them?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): The earmarking of accommodation or billets for military purposes is a matter for the military authorities or the police. It is customary for billeting officers, when reserving billets for evacuated persons, to inform householders of the number of persons they are likely to be asked to receive, but full particulars of the children or mothers with children to be billeted are not normally available until their arrival in the district.

IDENTITY CARDS.

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: asked the minister of Health whether, in the event of any individual failing to produce his national registration identity card when called upon to do so, is he required to produce his identity card within a specified period of time; and whether, during that specified period of time, he is immune from prosecution for his failure to comply with the regulations?

Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the Question is that an individual failing to produce his identity card when requested to do so by an authorised person is required to produce it within two clear days at a police station nominated

by the defaulter. With regard to the second part of the Question, no offence is committed under the existing law, unless and until the individual fails to produce his identity card within the prescribed period.

Sir E. Cadogan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather in the dilemma that if he did not allow time for the production of the identity card, a number of innocent persons would be victimised or prosecuted, and that if he did allow time in which to produce it, an enemy agent, for example, would be able to make himself scarce?

Mr. Brown: I have not been aware of a dilemma yet, but if my hon. Friend has any case to bring to my notice, I shall be very glad to look into it, for, as he knows, it is a very difficult problem.

PERSONNEL (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Health whether the scheme of hospital treatment, outlined on 3rd April, is available for part-time Civil Defence workers, and, if not, why not?

Mr. E. Brown: The special scheme for the treatment of fractures which I outlined to the House on 3rd April includes whole-time Civil Defence workers, but not part-time Civil Defence workers unless their other occupation brings them within the scheme. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the resources of the scheme in skilled personnel and accommodation are limited, and therefore, in view of other commitments, it is not practicable at present to extend the scheme beyond the already numerous classes of workers mentioned in my statement. I should make it clear, however, that all Civil Defence workers injured in the course of their duty, whether they are whole-time or part-time, already receive free treatment under the scheme and will continue to do so.

Major Milner: Is it not the fact that there is ample accommodation available in the hospitals of this country, and, if so, why discriminate against those who are giving their services free?

Mr. Brown: The answer to that is that it is not so, and although there is no guarantee under the scheme that was announced, the working-out of the scheme, it is hoped, will provide the


accommodation, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we have gone as far as we think we can in order to get these vital workers, who are outlined in the answer, back to work at the earliest possible moment on vital munitions work and full-time Civil Defence work, and we cannot go further than that.

Major Milner: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest convenient opportunity.

GAS RESPIRATORS (EXERCISES).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue an order in his campaign to make the people gas-conscious, compelling all persons to wear their respirators, whether in the street, office or factory, on specified days, and at certain times; and, further, for respirators to be worn for 20 minutes while work continues?

Mr. Mabane: As was stated in reply to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) on 3rd April, the enforcement of an order making the carrying of respirators compulsory presents great difficulties. My hon. Friend's suggestion would present similar difficulties. Public exercises, which involve the wearing of the respirator, are now being held in many places, and it has been urged that people should have periodical practice at their place of work. Such exercises and the continued propaganda which my Department is conducting will, it is hoped, secure the desired result.,

Mr. Craven-Ellis: The Question refers to the campaign to make the people gas-conscious. I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider his decision with that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Home Secretary whether the special constabulary is limited to British-born sons of British parents of European descent?

Mr. Peake: This matter is in the discretion of the police authorities. In the Metropolitan Police District it is the normal rule that applicants for enrolment must be British subjects of European descent and of British parentage, but exceptions to this rule may be made in suitable cases.

Mr. Bartlett: Would it not be better altogether to abolish the rule, in view of the fact that, for example, Indians serving this country have the right to His Majesty's commission? Is it not right that they should be allowed to serve their Empire in the same way?

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member must bear in mind that in time of war the special constabulary are granted very special powers, and I think that trouble might arise if powers, for instance of arrest, were to be exercised by persons who did not appear to be of pure British extraction.

Mr. Bartlett: Is that not a very undemocratic statement, and ought not the Government to do their best to put an end to that sort of prejudice?

Mr. J. Griffiths: What does the hon. Member mean my "pure British extraction?"

Mr. Peake: Of course, I include natives of the Principality of Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (ESCAPE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous cases of escapes from prison lately; and will he consider whether changes are called for in the composition of the Prison Commission?

Mr. Peake: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given yesterday to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle). As regards the second part of the Question, there is no justification for the suggestion that any changes are called for in the Prison Commissioners, in whom my right hon. Friend has full confidence.

Mr. Adams: Is it not a fact that there is an insufficiency of personnel in many of the prisons at present, which is the cause of the escapes, and that therefore the Prison Commissioners should be strengthened in some way?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will refer to the answer given yesterday, he will see that the increase in the number of attempted escapes is not due to any shortage of staff.

Mr. Davidson: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that an escape was assisted by cars left by careless owners in full running order?

Oral Answers to Questions — BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the serious shortage of accommodation in Borstal institutions; and whether he is taking steps to acquire additional accommodation in view of present and future needs?

Mr. Peake: From various causes arising out of the war, including air-raid damage to one institution, there was a shortage of accommodation in Borstal institutions last year. The accommodation has, however, since been extended and is now thought to be sufficient for present and future needs.

Mr. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are young men and youths waiting for weeks in prison in order to get to Borstal, to which they have been sentenced? Could he take steps to prevent these long periods of waiting?

Mr. Peake: It may interest the hon. Member to know that we have recovered one Borstal institution which was loaned to the military authorities; we have repaired one institution which was severely damaged by enemy action; and a third institution is being extended.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation has suspended its sittings for the duration of the war, or whether it is intended that it shall resume its work in the near future?

Mr. Peake: In accordance with the wish of the Government, as announced in the House on 30th January, 1940, the Royal Commission, which had suspended its proceedings at the outbreak of war, resumed its work, and held a number of sittings and took evidence from a number of witnesses, in the earlier part of last year. In the critical situation, however, which had developed in June last, the

Commission decided, for various reasons, to suspend its meetings for the time being, and, after inquiry, I regret that I can hold out no prospect that the Commission will be able to resume its proceedings in the near future. The Government are fully alive to the importance of this question and the desirability of having plans ready in advance to deal with it as part of the reconstruction necessary after the war, and my right hon. Friend is accordingly in consultation on the matter with my right hon. Friend, the Minister without Portfolio, who is specially concerned with such problems.

Mr. Griffiths: Were not the sittings of the Commission suspended on the decision, not of the whole Commission but only a section of the Commission? Will the Government recall that Commission to examine these problems immediately?

Mr. Peake: No, Sir. The decision to suspend the sittings was a decision of the Commission itself, and I am informed that it was a unanimous decision. The reasons for the suspension were several.

Mr. Griffiths: Since the matter is now being referred to the Minister without Portfolio, will he be competent to recall the Commission?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the circular issued by the Treasury enjoining on Departments that they should make the fullest possible use of Whitley machinery during the war; and why it is that Whitley machinery in the prison service is not functioning at all?

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. There has for many years been in operation in the prison service an organisation, known as the Representative Board, at which staff representations have been regularly discussed with the Prison Commissioners. Moreover, the Prison Commissioners agreed some time ago that the officers might form an association, with a view to the substitution of a Whitley Council for the Representative Board, and all the necessary steps for this purpose have now been taken. While it is important that the staff should have full opportunities of making representations about their conditions of service,


the special position of prison officers as members of a disciplined service must also be borne in mind, but, provided the importance of maintaining the discipline necessary in this service is not overlooked, there is no reason to think that the new form of representative machinery will not work satisfactorily.

Mr. Walkden: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that no representations have been made by the service, or by the warders' organisation in the prison service?

Mr. Peake: Representations have frequently been made, and there was an arbitration, I think only last year, upon conditions.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

AMERICAN HISTORY AND CIVIC LIFE (STUDY).

Mrs. Rathbone: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the necessity for permanent cooperation between this country and America, and in view of the desirability of providing, at least in secondary schools, a more detailed study of American history and present-day civic life, he will say what steps he will be prepared to take to put this into effect?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Ramsbotham): I am in full sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend has in view, and am actively engaged in examining steps to secure it.

Miss Cazalet: Does my right hon. Friend think that there is a sufficient number of the right type of text-books in existtence to deal with this question?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is one of the questions that I have to examine.

NURSERY CENTRES.

Miss Cazalet: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of nursery centres in being and the number of children attending them?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The number of nursery centres so far approved is 86. It is not possible to give the number of children actually in attendance, but these centres have accommodation for about 2,700 children.

Miss Cazalet: Does my right hon. Friend not think that the time has come

for co-ordinating all nursery provision for children under five, either under one Ministry or under one separate committee?

Mr. Ramsbotham: That seems to be a much wider question than the Question on the Paper.

EVACUATED CHILDREN (RETURN TO LONDON).

Miss Cazalet: asked the President of the Board of Education how many children of school age have returned to London since 1st January, 1941?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The number of school children evacuated under the Government scheme who have returned to London since 1st January, 1941, is 6,171. There are, however, a large number of children who have been moved out from and back to London by private arrangement, and precise figures of the total number of school children who have returned to London since that date are not, therefore, available.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education (1) whether, in view of the dislocation of family life and normal education, and the alarming growth of juvenile delinquency among children of school age, he will take special steps to safeguard child life, increase the provision of nursery centres and hostels, and, if necessary, institute a national child service throughout the country;
(2) whether, in view of the growth of juvenile delinquency among young people between the ages of 14 and 18, he will strengthen the youth welfare branch of the Board and appoint special personnel to foster the youth service movement in appointed areas?

Mr. Ramsbotham: My Department is in consultation with the Home Office, in the light of the suggestions made at the Home Office conference a week ago, as to the measures that can be taken to deal with the problem of juvenile delinquency, and a statement will be issued as soon as possible. The hon. Member may be sure that all practicable measures will be taken into account.

Mr. Lindsay: While I realise the difficulties with which my right hon. Friend is faced, will he not, in addition to com-


pulsion and opening schools as play centres, consider the suggestion that all those engaged in any form of service with children, from nursery centres to youth services, should have some form of recognition that their work is a vital part of the war effort? It is very difficult to get even domestic helpers in hostels, because they are tempted away by munitions work and other such services.

Mr. Davidson: Could not this have been done a long time ago, by a former Minister?

Mr. Ramsbotham: This is a very serious problem. The best method of approach is, on the one hand, the strictest possible enforcement of school attendance and, on the other hand, wherever possible, the encouragement of youth organisations such as clubs and youth service corps.

Mr. Lipson: Is the delinquency greater in those areas from which children have been evacuated, and where schools have been closed, than in reception areas?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITIA CAMPS (INQUIRY).

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Prime Minister (1) the terms of reference under which the Chancery Judge will examine evidence to decide if there are prima facie cases arising from the allegations of waste, extravagance and dishonesty in the carrying out of Government contracts;
(2) whether he will state, in two categories, what documents have been submitted to the Chancery Judge appointed to decide on prima facie cases for further inquiry, namely, evidence before the Select Committee and evidence not before the Select Committee; and who is the person who has the responsibility of deciding what evidence shall be so submitted?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 2nd April last.

Sir W. Smithers: Is not the House allowed to know the terms of reference, in view of the fact that the Financial Secretary to the War Office said yesterday

that certain things would not come within those terms of reference? In view of the 11 reports of the Select Committee and of the statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech, why restrict the scope of the inquiry? Could we have an answer?

Mr. Attlee: I have nothing to add to my reply.

Mr. Garro Jones: Would it not really be right of my right hon. Friend to tell the House who has the responsibility of deciding what evidence is to be laid before the learned Judge? Is it to be the same people who have repeatedly repudiated the allegations that have been made?

Mr. Attlee: If my hon. Friend will study the reply to which I have referred, he will see the answer.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that we never heard anything until yesterday about the terms of reference of the Judge who has been appointed?

Sir I. Albery: Is it not right that when a Member of this House asks whether a Paper is to be laid, he should be told whether it is to be laid, and if not, why not?

Mr. Attlee: The reply that was given previously to the hon. Member stated what was the reference to the Judge and also that it was for him to say what evidence he required.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask that these terms of reference be placed in the Library, or circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Attlee: The answer has already been circulated.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (WORKING HOURS).

Mrs. Rathbone: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the further hour to be added to the present daylight saving and in the light of urgent representation from the agricultural community, he will consider issuing an order to alter the working hours for agricultural workers?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): During the period 3rd May to 9th August when Summer time will be two hours in advance of Greenwich mean


time, the working day in agriculture will, nevertheless, remain as at present, that is, one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time. If, for example, the normal hours of work on a farm are from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., the hours, when the clock is advanced, will be from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The necessary provision has been made in the Order in Council amending the Summer Time Regulations. Provision is made, however, for any farmer to agree with any of his workmen to work according to the "double Summer time" clock if they so desire.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that nothing is done by the war agricultural committees to prevent small working farmers who are working all the hours of daylight from growing food for the war effort?

Oral Answers to Questions — DETERMINATION OF NEEDS ACT (REGULATIONS).

Sir I. Albery: asked the Minister of Health when the new Determination of Needs, Act will come into force?

Mr. E. Brown: Draft Regulations made under the Act are being laid before the House to-day. It is proposed that the Regulations relating to supplementary pensions shall come into force on the appropriate day for the payment of pensions in the week beginning 2nd June. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service that it is proposed that the corresponding Regulations relating to Unemployment Assistance shall also come into force on 2nd June.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL MEN (PRIORITY SERVICE).

Sir F. Fremantle: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now established an organisation for settlement of priority, as between the demands of the several Forces and Departments, for medical men, recommended in January last by the Robinson Committee and urged by the Central Medical War Committee as essential to its work?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir. My right hon. Friends the Service Ministers and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are awaiting the results of the measures which

we have taken to carry out the other recommendations of the Robinson Committee, and in the meantime we have not thought it necessary to set up any special priority organisation such as is referred to by my hon. Friend. The matter will, however, be kept under consideration.

Sir F. Fremantle: Does my right hon. Friend realise that those who are concerned vitally with this matter recognise that the one essential, important and practical recommendation of this Committee was the last one, which has not been attended to?

Mr. Brown: I realise the importance of the issue, and as I have pointed out, the very fact that such a number of Ministries are concerned in considering it shows that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Pensions why a pension has been refused to 4915159, Sergeant J. Foster, of Wolverhampton, who was graded AI when he entered the Army on 25th August, 1939, and was discharged as C3 on 16th June, 1940, as there was no previous history of chest trouble, but that on discharge he was suffering from chronic bronchitis?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Paling): My right hon. Friend regrets that it has not been possible in the time available to obtain from "our office in the North the papers which relate to this case. He will, however, look into it and write the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Mander: May I inform the hon. Member that I shall put down a further Question? I have already had a letter, and that is not much good at all.

Sir R. Acland: Can the hon. Member say whether the Advisory Committee's report on this matter has yet been made, and, if not, when it will be made?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise on this Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

CURRENCY (GOLD AND SILVER ARTICLES).

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to


lessen foreign currency difficulties, he proposes to launch an appeal for gold and silver articles and ornaments?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): This suggestion has been considered on several occasions. I do not think that its adoption is desirable at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: But does not the Budget deal with this problem?

INCOME TAX AND SURTAX.

Sir R. Acland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the increase of Surtax and Income Tax, over and above what would have been received if present rates were continued, comes from Surtax, from Income Tax on incomes over £5,000, from Income Tax on incomes between £1,000 and £5,000, and from Income Tax on incomes under £1,000?

Captain Crookshank: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir R. Acland: As the total contains only four figures, I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to read the four figures asked for now.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Gentleman has not seen the table. He is wrong

Ranges of Income.
Number of Taxpayers.
Yield in 1941–42.
Yield in a Full Year.



£

£


£m
£m



110

1,000


7,500,000
85
162



1,000

5,000


275,000
32
45


Over £5,000
…
…
…
…
25,000
18
24


Total for individuals
…
…
…
7,800,000
135
231


Non-personal income (companies' reserves, life insurance funds, &amp;c).
16
22


Total 
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
£m151
253

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE ACT.

RENTS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' HOUSES).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement as to the position of the local authority, of which he has been told, under the War Damage Act, as to the passing on of the premiums in the form of increased rents to tenants of houses built under the various Housing Acts?

in thinking that it contains only four figures.

Sir R. Acland: Then I do not think that the Minister has looked at my Question, which only asks for four figures.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: rose—

Sir R. Acland: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Minister said he would do something with my permission. That presumes that I will give permission. I am only asking for four figures, and I do not give the Minister permission to circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Captain Crookshank: If the House will tolerate it, I will certainly read them out.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think really, in view of the fact that there is a large number of Questions on the Paper, it is not necessary. I agree that very often long answers to Questions are partly responsible for not getting through a larger number of Questions.

Following is the table:

The effect of the Budget proposals in the Income Tax and Surtax spheres is to increase the yield of Income Tax by£151,000,000 in the current year and £253,000,000 in a full year. These sums would be contributed by the various ranges of income approximately as follow:

Captain Crookshank: As my right hon. Friend explained in reply to the Question by my hon. Friend on Tuesday, the War Damage Act provides that contributions shall be treated for all purposes as outgoings of a capital nature, and therefore they cannot be included in the housing revenue accounts of local authorities. Consequently it is not possible for a local authority to obtain the money for con-


tributions by increasing the rents of their houses. My right hon. Friend is passing on the correspondence sent to him by the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who has undertaken to communicate with the local authority concerned.

COMMISSION (STAFF).

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to safeguard firms in the management and survey of property against losing highly technical members of their already depleted staffs to the War Damage Commission, who are offering salaries and terms of employment which competitive professions cannot afford?

Captain Crookshank: Following normal practice, appointments under the War Damage Commission are made by selection from persons who have registered with the Ministry of Labour and National Service. Rates of pay offered are related to the duties to be performed under the Commission and are not considered to be excessive.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman investigate several cases that I can give him where people have been attracted from their professions who have never registered in the Central Register?

Captain Crookshank: I will certainly look at any cases which my hon. Friend likes to put before me, but it is novel that they should be able to obtain salaries in the Civil Service much higher than those outside.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: But what I have said is the fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

COMMUNITY FEEDING.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the vulnerable and industrialised areas North and South of the River Tyne are under-provided with communal feeding kitchens; that in the county of Northumberland not one urban district, rural district or borough has provided kitchens, and in Durham County, South Shields alone had done so by 27th March; and whether, as many of these areas are now vulnerable, and others might be required to receive refugees from

bombed areas, he will consider the list of un provided towns sent him, with a view to prompt action?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Adams: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me the purport of the reply?

Major Lloyd George: Not between now and the end of Question time.

Following is the answer:

My Noble Friend has been pressing local authorities since November last to proceed as a matter of urgency with the establishment of British restaurants, particularly in vulnerable and industrial areas. Some local authorities have been slow to realise the necessity, but every effort is being made to impress the urgency of the matter upon all local authorities and particularly upon those in the Tyneside area and in the counties of Northumberland and Durham. Of the list of 24 local authorities supplied by my hon. Friend, 10, so far as I am aware, have not up to the present considered the establishment of British restaurants. I am arranging that special consideration shall be given to these areas. Civic authorities in towns of 50,000 population and over in Northumberland and Durham have also been requested by my Noble Friend to institute arrangements for feeding not less than 10 per cent. of the population should an emergency arise in these towns. They have also been urged to consult with neighbouring local authorities with a view-to the provision of similar arrangements in the surrounding areas.

Schemes have already been submitted and approved from the largest towns, and, wherever necessary, equipment and stocks of food have been provided. These latter emergency arrangements are for people not necessarily homeless, who by reason of failure of essential services are unable to take advantage of the ordinary facilities for meals. Provision for rest and feeding facilities for the homeless is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. In the areas immediately North and South of the River Tyne 16 British restaurants are already established, in-


cluding 14 in Newcastle-on-Tyne, one in South Shields and one in Tynemouth; five further restaurants are proposed for Newcastle-on-Tyne, two for South Shields and seven for Tynemouth. My Noble Friend is also informed that four other local authorities have under active consideration proposals for a further eight British restaurants. In addition in the County of Durham 15 local authorities have proposals for 82 British restaurants and in Northumberland six local authorities have proposals for eight British restaurants. Of the total number of 128, plans for 41 have been approved, 16 are actually established and plans for the remaining 71 are under active consideration.

TEA RATION (STALL-HOLDERS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give any information in connection with tea supplied to stallholders; and whether his attention has been called to the comment made by the stipendiary magistrate of the Old Street Police Court on Saturday last?

Major Lloyd George: A stall-holder is in exactly the same position as any other retailer in regard to obtaining supplies of tea and making sales to the public. I have seen Press reports of the learned stipendiary's comment referred to by the hon. Member. The Tea (Rationing) Order is designed to prevent consumers from obtaining more than the ration quantity of tea, and I have no reason to assume that it is ineffective in the manner suggested.

CHILDREN (DIET).

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to his proposals for dealing with the special needs of young children requiring such food as eggs and fruit; and whether these will be made available through clinics or, through some other channel?.

Major Lloyd George: I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 3rd April by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he expects to be able to make a statement on the subject?

Major Lloyd George: I hope, very soon, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is a very difficult question. It is under close examination at the present time.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman keep in view the special position of young children with regard to rationing? Are there any regulations dealing specially with young children?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir, milk is one. There is special provision made in regard to young children.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL DISTRIBUTION (LABOUR, WEST MIDLANDS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the difficulties being experienced in the West Mdilands in obtaining labour for the essential distribution of coal; and whether he will make arrangements for the calling-up of skilled and experienced men to be postponed?

Major Sir James Edmondson (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties experienced by the coal distributive trade, in common with other trades and industries, in the West Midlands, and elsewhere, in obtaining labour. It has recently been agreed that the deferment arrangements which have been in operation during the winter shall continue until the end of May.

Mr. Mander: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when that decision was come to", because last week persons who came within this category were being called up? Was the decision taken recently?

Sir J. Edmondson: I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

PRESBYTERIAN SERVICES (BROADCASTING).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Information how many Presbyterian services were broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation during each of the months of January, February and


March, 1941; whether he is aware that many workers in Scotland are employed on necessary duties of national importance on Sundays during the hours of divine service; whether he has considered representations on the subject transmitted to him by the hon. Member for Greenock; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Harold Nicolson): Five Presbyterian services were broadcast during January, 1941, one during February and two during March. The time available for religious broadcasting is allocated by the British Broadcasting Corporation to the various religious denominations on a regular basis approved by the Central Religious Advisory Committee, while religious broadcasts are fixed at the hours found most convenient to the public in general. Accordingly my right hon. Friend sees no reason to ask the Corporation to change the existing arrangements.

Mr. Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the penultimate part of my Question? Has he considered the representations I have transmitted to him dealing with the particular question of the men who are working during the hours of divine service?

Mr. Nicolson: My right hon. Friend is giving it very careful consideration.

PROPAGANDA FILMS (SKILLED LABOUR).

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Minister of information whether there is any danger of interference with the production of propaganda films by the calling up of men whose skill is essential to such production and who are, therefore, key men in the war effort?

Mr. Nicolson: My right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and National Service and the President of the Board of Trade with a view to ensuring that sufficient skilled man-power is retained for the production of propaganda films—and of films generally—having regard to the manpower needs of the Armed Forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

CASE FOR INQUIRY.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for War why Sapper Kelly, H., No. 2044023, Royal Engineers, par-

ticulars regarding whom have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Greenock, was sent, without the knowledge of headquarters, from hospital, with an injured foot, to Gibraltar, where he had again to go into hospital owing to his injured foot; who was at fault in this matter; and what he proposed to do in the circumstances?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I have not yet completed my investigations into this case. As soon as they are completed I will communicate with my hon. and learned friend.

BANDS.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War when it may be expected that military bands will be used in escorting troops through the streets of London and the provincial centres; and, in view of their stimulating effect on both the general public and the troops themselves, will he consider making a more general use of such bands for this purpose?

Mr. Law: Military bands are already being used for the purpose which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view, and I anticipate that they will be used more frequently in future as a result of the increased travelling facilities to which I referred in the Answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend on 27th March.

Sir T. Moore: But is my hon. Friend aware that I, personally, have hardly been out of London since the war started and have not seen a single military band on the streets during the last 18 months? Does he send them out in a plain van?

Mr. Law: My hon. and gallant Friend has been unfortunate. These bands do exist. They played a great deal last summer and it is hoped they will be able to play in the streets this summer.

Sir Stanley Reed: Was there not a military band on the streets this morning?

Sir T. Moore: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind the effect on the troops themselves as well as on the public, and remember that that is a vital part of a band's duty? Will he reconsider the question and put them out on the streets so that we can see them?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. We are quite aware of the importance of this matter to the troops as well as to the public and are doing everything we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUXILIARY TERRITORIAL SERVICE AND WOMEN'S AUXILIARY AIR FORCE (NEW STATUS).

General Sir George Jeffreys (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give the House regarding the strength and status of the Auxiliary Territorial Service?

The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): Yes, Sir. The Auxiliary Territorial Service has proved so valuable to the Army in replacement of men that the Government have decided to increase its numbers greatly and to enlarge the range of duties which it performs. Members of the Service are already discharging important functions connected with the air defence of Great Britain as well as with the rest of the Forces at home, and these are of a character which renders it desirable that the volunteers performing them should be definitely declared members of the Armed Forces of the Crown. The whole Service will accordingly be given full military status. Women will, of course, be employed only on work for which they have a special aptitude, but the House should know that such work includes duties at searchlight and gun stations. We have a particular need for women with good educational qualifications. The Service will remain a women's Service under the general direction of women, and the disciplinary Code of the Army will be applied to it only in so far as the wider responsibilities now envisaged necessitate. I should explain that existing members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service enrolled on the specific understanding that they would be subject on active service to military law and to such penalties as might then be prescribed. They are therefore not being made subject to conditions inconsistent with the terms on which they were enrolled, and I have every reason to believe that they will welcome their new status.

Mr. Bellenger: Will this change necessitate any change in the Army Act governing the discipline of the Auxiliary Territorial Force?

Captain Margesson: No, Sir, there will not be any change. It simply means that the parts of the Act which are applicable to women's service will be applied to the Auxiliary Territorial Service.

Miss Cazalet (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has any information to give the House regarding the strength and status of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): Yes, Sir. The Government have decided to introduce similar measures in respect of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force to those just announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War in connection with the Auxiliary Territorial Service. It is proposed to give full Air Force status to the W.A.A.F., but the Force will continue as heretofore so far as its organisation and administration are concerned, and the disciplinary code of the R.A.F. will be applied to it only in so far as is appropriate and necessary in view of the wider spheres of employment which are envisaged for it. The position of existing members of the Force is similar to that outlined by the Secretary of State for War in respect of the Auxiliary Territorial Service. It is proposed greatly to increase the strength of this Force, so as to allow of the greatest practicable substitution of women for men over a wider range of duties.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir R. Acland: May I raise again, very briefly, the point of Order which during Question Time seemed to engage the mild interest of other Members of this House? If you look at Question No. 62, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you will find there that I asked for four quite straightforward figures. I thought that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might have a very natural desire to publish to the House and the country the other figures which need to be known in order that the importance or otherwise of the figures I asked for should be judged. I appreciate that he has every right to ask me whether he may publish all these figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I appreciate, too, that if I then asked him if he would give me the particular four figures for which I asked—which could not be a very difficult task or require any great amount of


time—he has every right to ask me not to judge the effect of these figures until I have seen the other figures which he wishes to publish, and that he has every right to refuse to entertain Supplementary Questions until that has been done. The two questions which I wish to ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the guidance of the House are whether the words "with the hon. Member's permission" are in fact a pure formality which can be set aside by the Minister—and that is the question of principle—and whether you will permit the Minister to give me now, not the whole table, but just the four figures for which I asked?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member must realise that I have no control over the answers which are given by Ministers, provided that they are in order and in no way objectionable from the point of view of the Chair. In those circumstances I am not prepared to make any suggestion in regard to the questions the hon. Member asked me. As to the Minister having used the words "with permission," the Minister is quite entitled to take that course if he chooses. I am afraid the hon. Member must accept it.

Sir R. Acland: Then what is the point of introducing the words "with permission" if the Minister is in any case going to do what he proposes to do?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for me. There is a certain amount of freedom of speech allowed even to Members on the Front Bench, and if they choose to put in a few polite words that is not a matter for me.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: On the same point of Order, and for the guidance of the House, is it not a fact that a Member who puts down a starred Question is entitled to an answer to that Question on the Floor of the House, however long or short the answer may be, and if a Question has been starred, does not the phrase "with the hon. Member's permission"mean that the hon. Member's permission is necessary before the Minister can circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think not.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADJOURNMENT (EASTER).

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 22nd April"[Mr. Attlee]

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Percy William Jewson, Esquire, for the Borough of Great Yarmouth.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, '' An Act to re-define the limits of supply of the Camborne Water Company; to confer additional powers upon the Company; and for other purposes"—

Camborne Water Bill [Lords].

CAMBORNE WATER BILL [Lords].

Read the First time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [9TH APRIL].

Resolution reported:

AMENDMENT OF LAW.

"That it is expedient to amend the law relating to National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance."

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the further consideration of the Resolution be adjourned," put, and agreed to. —[Mr. James Stuart.]

Resolution to be further considered upon the next Sitting day.

NATIONAL LOANS.

Resolution reported,
That, —
(1)The power of the Treasury to raise money under Section one of the National Loans Act, 1939, shall include power to raise any money required for raising any supply granted to His Majesty for the ser vice of the year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-two; and in addition a sum not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds;
(2)further provision shall be made as respects the mode of transferring stock and bonds issued under the said Act and as respects the registration thereof and certi ficates of ownership thereof."

Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Captain Crookshank.

NATIONAL LOANS BILL,

"to extend the powers of the Treasury to raise money under Section one of the National Loans Act, 1939, and substitute other provisions for the provisions of paragraph 1 of the Second"Schedule to that Act,"presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting day, and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

NORTHERN RHODESIAN COPPER-BELT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,"That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. James Stuart.)

Mr. Creech Jones: Although the situation in Europe and Africa is grim and we seek to vindicate certain great principles—principles of importance to the future of Africans—I am sure the House will not begrudge spending an hour of its time in discussing the well-being of Africans for whom this House has a special responsibility. The Copperbelt Report has occasioned considerable interest because the repercussions of the questions in dispute have been felt in all parts of Africa, and how the problems raised are handled will have a great importance in our future relations in that great Continent. I regret that the Commission appointed to investigate this dispute was a Commission of the Northern Rhodesian Government. This was not the responsibility of Lord Moyne or of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, but the fact remains that, as it was a Commission of the Northern Rhodesian Government, there has been considerable delay and very great difficulty has been experienced by many bodies interested in the problems of the Copperbelt, in obtaining copies of the report itself. I hope that this method of investigating such special grievances in the Colonies will not be adopted again. I would like to say, in this connection, that I am a little puzzled that the draft report should have been submitted to certain interests whose activities were in review before the Report was officially published.
I think, as a House, we should congratulate the Commission—

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
(1)Public Works Loans Act, 1941.
(2)National Service Act, 1941.
(3)Isle of Man (Detention) Act, 1941.
(4)Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1941.

NORTHERN RHODESIAN COPPER-BELT.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"

Mr. Creech Jones: I was about to remark that we are grateful to the Commission in question for the speedy way in which they discharged their duties. It may be that one does not altogether agree with the rather narrow way in which certain aspects of the problems have been dealt with, but I think we are all agreed that they approached the matters in question in a practical and commonsense way. I regret that the Northern Rhodesian Government have not accepted certain of the recommendations which the Commissioners made. To-day I want to resist the temptation to discuss British policy generally in Northern Rhodesia, or to say much about past neglect, present needs and the slow social development. A series of illuminating Reports all point the way the Territory should go. It is largely an undeveloped country. Its manhood and its wealth have, to a degree, been drained away, and its people are very poor. We have obligations to the native people, and I hope that the British policy will rest on the principles of the paramountcy of African interests and opposition to racial theories and practices which are based on the assumption of the superiority of the white man. The mines in Northern Rhodesia have, in recent years, been the outstanding economic feature, and in 1935, when a disturbance in the Copper-belt occurred, the Commission appointed then, with prophetic vision, made these remarks:
Here (in the Copperbelt) there are considerable numbers of natives concentrated in compounds without chiefs; with their tribal organisations being broken down by disinte grating influences; becoming accustomed to machinery and modern methods; feeling an increasing desire for luxuries, and what has been called pathetic contentment rapidly giving way to what has been called divine contentment. Experience in all countries shows that industrial disputes give rise to violent passions and often to sudden violent destruction, to the loss of all parties, which is afterwards regretted; and it is unreasonable to hope that no such industrial dispute will ever take place on the Copperbelt. It is a possibility which must increase with the development of industrialism, and it seems necessary to recognise the fact and to take such measures as are necessary to reserve the public peace.
That was stated by the Commissioners in 1935, and I think it will be generally

agreed that following that report comparatively little was done beyond the setting up of a Native Industrial Labour Advisory Board. It is true that three years afterwards Major Orde-Browne did report on the situation as he saw it at that time. He stated that the unfortunate neglect by the Government of the new problems arising out of mineral exploitation, and the large measure of industrialisation which had suddenly overtaken the native population, called for attention. He pointed out the glaring defects in respect of accurate statistical evidence as to native movements, disease, contracts, wages, and cost of living. He also referred to the lack of comprehension in the relations between industry and the administration and the lack"of experienced men and people to deal with recent industrial growth and developments. Following Major Orde-Browne's investigation, it is quite true that a Labour Department was created, that a Labour Commissioner was appointed at the centre, and that the Labour Advisory Board was improved. He recommended that there should be at least four labour officers appointed in the Copperbelt. At the time of the dispute no labour officer had been appointed, and it was then obvious that a great deal still needed to be done if the grievances of the employés were to be focussed. It was obvious that certain machinery should be created in order that the views of the natives concerned should be made known.
The absence of suitable industrial machinery should be kept in mind when dealing with the problems of the dispute. The Northern Rhodesian Government did not heed the 1935 warning which I have already read to the House. I stated that there was no broad machinery for the ventilation of these grievances or to deal with disputes. The Government in the present dispute had warning of the trouble which was brewing. That is brought out in paragraph 46 of the Report. They must have been conscious that there had been no adjustment in wages to meet the new necessities, that the cost of living was rising, and that industrial problems had been neglected over a period. It was clear, even when the dispute was coming to a head, that the Government there were still half-hearted in their proposals and the kind of intervention which was necessary if the crisis was to be avoided. Industrialism and wage earning have spread


practically into all corners of the British Empire, and it is imperative that we should not wait on events but should go all out with a well-conceived and well-planned labour policy in respect of the whole Colonial Empire.
About the dispute itself, we all deplore the loss of life, but I feel that the authorities had a very nasty situation to handle. There may be grounds for criticism that, for instance, there was not enough tear gas available, which might have avoided the necessity of shooting, or that it is a pity that the management paraded the native workers who had been at work on the pay day in sight of the strikers. But I think the situation was an ugly one, and undoubtedly the authorities handled it in as practical a way as the circumstances of the moment permitted.
But the Report reminds us that something is not altogether right in regard to wage relations as between the mines managements and the African people. It is true that the standard of wages is higher than those operating in other parts of the area and that the mine-owners appreciate the value of a healthy and contented labour force, and they have a great deal to their credit in regard to the provision that they have made in respect to medical care and sanitation and certain aspects of welfare. But wages have remained, until this dispute, pretty well unaltered all these years and, following the slump, they never recovered with the prosperity of the mines. There was no attempt to bring the African wage-earners up to a standard more consistent with the return of prosperity to the Copperbelt. I think it is fair to say that the mine-owners have always taken advantage of cheap labour in the Protectorate, of the lack of organisation among the workers and of the desire of the Africans for wage employment because of their poverty and their tax needs. The Commission has been extraordinarily modest in its recommendations in the matter of wages, and only some very tardy concessions have been made. No one will suggest, however poor the standard of living of the Africans, that an increase of less than 1d. a day is a satisfactory wage accommodation. A ticket carries with it 30 shifts, and it means that every day of the month must be worked in order that the half-crown shall be earned in that month.

Probably this is deliberately done to compel the worker to work every day of the week, Sundays included, so that he can claim no special rates in regard to his week-end employment.
The same tardy concession is seen in the bonus which was agreed to of 2s. 6d. to meet the increased cost of living. Even that bonus is subjected to the good will of the compound manager. That is to say, the compound manager, a civilian outside the immediate work, may make deductions or determine whether the full bonus should be paid I should like to ask why, when the Commission recommended that no deductions for disciplinary purposes should be made from the bonus payments, the Northern Rhodesian Government do not accept the recommendation, and why these new disciplinary powers should be placed in the hands of the compound manager. I believe that under Statute they have no right to exercise these disciplinary powers.
Likewise, in regard to overtime, the Government reject the proposal of the Commission that there should be a fair basis of calculation of overtime rates, and the grounds of the rejection by the Government are that the method recommended is contrary to local practice. I should have thought the Commission made its recommendations because of what the local practice was, and I am astonished that so flimsy a pretext should be offered. The other wage adjustments proposed are almost illusory, because so many of the Africans do not stay at the mines much more than six months and therefore cannot earn the special increments which are likely to accrue for service beyond this period. In any case any additional costs which these adjustments may involve are not likely to fall on the copper companies at all. There is an arrangement in regard to the output of copper with the Ministry of Supply whereby any additional working costs to which the companies are put will be borne by the British Exchequer. I submit that more generous arrangements might have been made as far as wages, overtime and bonus payments are concerned.
Something must be radically wrong in our Colonial methods when we allow such intense poverty and so much disease in a Territory where there is an enormous drainage of great wealth from it. This aspect of the problem has received con-


siderable attention outside the House. All the missionary bodies and associations concerned with the well-being of the African people have urged from time to time that there should be some limit to this drainage of wealth in order that the welfare of the Africans in their own lands shall be built up or safeguarded. I would submit that in the case of the Copperbelt an end ought to be brought to the perfectly infamous arrangement whereby the British South African Company are able to levy a perpetual toll on industry in royalties on the work that is done. I need not tell the history of that transaction, but sooner or later, and the sooner the better, this miserable story ought to be brought to an end, because probably as much is taken out of the territory in royalties as the total wage bill of all the black people who are employed on the Copperbelt. That is a grossly unfair situation.
Likewise, the Copperbelt companies are making an enormous contribution in taxation to both the local and Imperial Exchequers. We are receiving in taxation from the Copperbelt a vast sum of money every year, and I would suggest that that money should be returned to the Colony and used as a trust fund for social and economic development. In addition, a vast sum of money is annually distributed in this country to the shareholders of the Copperbelt companies. It may be argued that, taking a long period, that return is not as large as is often assumed. In point of fact, between £5,000,000 and £3,000,000 has been sent out in the past few years, and it amounts to from 12 to 16 times the total wage bill of the 26,000 Africans who are engaged in the work. The miserable wages paid on the one hand and these enormous profits on the other are completely unjustifiable.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: The hon. Gentleman has informed the House that a large sum of money is paid annually by way of dividends. In order that the amount he mentioned might have some meaning, will he say on what capital it has been paid? I am not asking for any purpose except for genuine information.

Mr. Creech Jones: For some of the companies the average yield may be 5½ per cent. over a long period of years. The actual dividend in recent years is infinitely higher. The point I am making is that

out of the Colony, something like £3,000,000 to £5,000,000 is distributed every year to shareholders in London. This wealth is taken from the Colony where the total African wages are £300,000 to £500,000. That disparity is completely unjustifiable. It is not a question of how much capital is invested. It is a question of the enormous drainage of wealth from the Colony which ought to be retained for the well-being and happiness of the people.
The poverty, ill-health and undernourishment of this Territory have a bearing on the industrial problem. When the Royal Commission reviewed the situation a year or so ago they pointed out how thin was the whole economic apparatus of the Territory. They urged a policy of development in agriculture and subsidiary industries which, they said, should be vigorously pursued—and, I submit, vigorously pursued, even in war-time. Otherwise, the drainage from the villages will not be modified and the appalling social consequences stopped. Major Orde-Browne pointed out in his report that there were probably 280,000 adult taxpayers in the Dependency. Of these, 90,000 were involved in employment out of the Dependency, 48,000 were unfit for full manual labour, 67,000 were wage earners in employment in the territory, and only 60,000 earned their livelihood other than by wage-earning employment. These figures reveal how far wage-earning has developed over a great section of this Territory. The fact that people are obliged to leave their villages to seek wage-earning employment which has brought them in turn into contact with Western influences has a most unsettling effect.
I cannot appreciate in these circumstances why the Northern Rhodesian Government cannot make up their minds, as is revealed in their statement attached to this Report, on the vital issue whether there should be attached to the mines a permanent labour force. The Report informs us that 18 months is the average time away from the village on the Copperbelt. Large numbers of persons who leave their villages never return. The mine-owners themselves submitted in their evidence the necessity for the presence in the compounds of the wives and families of the labourers, and they pointed out that if there were to be con-


tentment, morality, health and well-being among their people, proper arrangements must be made for the wives and families of the labourers to come into the compounds. At the Roan Antelope Mine three out of five men who are employed are married. At Nkana two out of five are married. How far accommodation can be provided depends on the general policy of the companies, but, judging from the figures in Major Orde-Browne's report, it is reasonable to say that in all cases the percentage where wives accompany husbands has tended to rise in recent years and that there is also a corresponding increase in the average period of employment of each labourer. At the Roan Antelope Mine 35 per cent. of the African labourers have stayed more than two years, and 21 per cent. have stayed for six months to two years. At Mufulira 23 per cent. have stayed for two years or more, and 25 per cent. from six months to two years. At Nkana 27 per cent. have stayed for more than two years and 31 per cent. from six months to two years. These are significant figures showing a tendency to the creation of an industrialised class of labour among the Africans and the creation of an African who is steadily becoming detribalised.
I submit that that tendency cannot easily be reversed. In point of fact, so far as the Belgian Congo is concerned, it has been accepted as a fact that a system of family settlement should be established, and the deliberate aim in the Belgian Congo is that the second generation of workers should not drift in from the villages but be born on the spot. If you are to stabilise and develop the countryside, then I think some greater stability will also have to be found in the Copperbelt itself; but the Northern Rhodesian Government would seem to have no definite policy as regards stabilisation or the establishment of a permanent labour force, and seem sometimes to ignore the fact that a wage-earning section of the African community has now been created, because, as pointed out by the Commission itself, with the vast resources of copper in this region the industry cannot be regarded as other than a permanent one.
The present uncertainty in policy seems to hold up social improvements in the

compounds and makes for unsteady industrial conditions, because a well-thought-out policy cannot be pursued if there is a continuously changing mining population. After all, many of those people have left tribal authority and all that is associated with tribal life behind them. In a recent count in the Copper-belt it was found that two-thirds of the children were actually born in the mining areas. They have no real tribal life, and so it seems futile to prevent permanent settlement in order to preserve the tribal system when the Africans are subject to all these disintegrating factors. The abnormal social conditions in the Copperbelt are generally recognised, and they are an additional argument for building up a permanent labour force around the mines. The irregular unions, the uncontrolled and undisciplined children, create for those who are administering in this area some very grave social problems. In those conditions you cannot hope to preserve very much of the structure of tribal life, with its predominance of tradition, as in the villages. I suggest that if the Government do not favour a permanent family settlement at least they should hurry on with proper arrangements in respect to repatriation and recommitment and there should also be better schemes in respect of deferred pay. Above all, there should be a policy for agriculture in the villages.
Now let us look at the question of accommodation as provided in the Copperbelt. Surely more should be done to provide the accommodation required by married workers and their families. In my submission, home-making ought to be encouraged and everything done to ensure a stable permanent nucleus. If a slump did overtake the Copperbelt in the future it would be unlikely that it would have very much effect on the permanent labour force established in proper proportions along the lines I have suggested. Accordingly, the compounds should be made much more attractive and less ugly, greater privacy should be available for the Africans, and, as is pointed out in the report, there ought to be more tree-planting to reduce the dust and the glare. More should be done for recreation and diversion, I submit, and facilities provided in the compounds for the wives and others to grow vegetables and have a little land to cultivate.
I have not the time to say much more about the social needs of these areas, of


the problem of the children, the adolescents and the women, and the necessity for the extension of education, but all these are fundamental questions in those areas. May I, in passing, emphasise the danger of this industrial bleeding artery which is draining away from the villages the vitally necessary manhood of the country? In some way or other the evil ought to be controlled, certainly modified. The social consequences in Northern Rhodesia are disastrous. Large numbers of men never return to the villages, where the standard of life tends to get steadily worse. If we are to counteract in some degree the effect on native society of all these disintegrating forces a more vigorous agricultural policy is urgently and fundamentally necessary, difficult as the working out of such a policy may be.
Then the Commission recommend means of expressing grievances and negotiating with managements on the special industrial problems of the Africans. They suggest that an "elder" system might be established to bridge the way to trade unionism. One recognises the difficulty of establishing full-fledged trade unionism among an illiterate people, and a people who have not grown up in a long industrial tradition, but I would point out that the "elder" system is not generally operative in the Copperbelt. At best, it has only functioned for compound purposes, and when the dispute occurred it seemed to break down altogether. Obviously, with the flow of labour in and out of the Copperbelt, the forms of combination such as we are most familiar with in this country cannot be established very easily, but I hope that in the case of the permanent labour force, of the more experienced Africans established about the mines, the practice of combination may be allowed to develop and, indeed, encouraged in every way.
I would hope that the labour advisers will do all they can to give a guiding and helping hand to the Africans, and that they will as time goes on seek practical methods of bringing into operation a more effective form of combination than the Elder system for dealing with all the problems that arise out of industrialism. But I notice that the system of "elders" does not altogether recommend itself to the Northern Rhodesian Government, and I should like to know whether they are retreating from this recommendation of the

Commission. I suggest also that the labour officers should make it their business to intervene or to help the Africans in their industrial relations by not waiting for grievances to flare up but by seeing that modifications and improvements are introduced into African conditions of employment and thereby prevent friction and greater grievances arising. I would make the suggestion that labour officers should not be appointed merely for three years, but should have, as far as possible, a proper avenue of promotion and of first-class work inside the Labour Department itself, so that we should not have in the Colonial Service these continual transfers in and out of the labour officers. There should always be experienced labour officers to deal with the problems of industry.
I also ask the Under-Secretary of State to say what the Government are doing in respect of the problems of recruitment and repatriation as are mentioned in paragraph 198 of the Report. Also, is it intended that penal sanctions shall be completly abolished in this territory? If so, how soon? Will early steps be taken to improve the existing workmen's compensation law? It is true that a new Ordinance has been put upon the Statute Book in recent months in Northern Rhodesia, but it is not as generous as it should be in its terms. In the event of death, for instance, the calculation is based on a computation of three and a half years' life. There should be a nearer approximation to the methods which have been adopted in our own country, inadequate as they are.
My last point is in reference to the colour bar, which is of fundamental importance. The colour bar is practised in the Dependency. The Commissioners desire that it should be modified. I submit that the policy, as set out by the Northern Rhodesian Government, looks very much as though that Government desire to perpetuate it. This matter really is the touchstone of British administration in Africa. The notice of the Commissioners was drawn to the bitter resentment caused among African workers by the terms of address and the sneering attitude frequently used towards Africans by Europeans. Africans are employed to a limited extent on certain supervising jobs, and frequently on


work calling for a great deal of skill. When the Commission was in Northern Rhodesia the Africans challenged the Europeans as to the volume of work which they as a team could produce in comparison with a team of Europeans, and as to the quality of the work which they performed. In their proposals, the Northern Rhodesian Government seem to shuffle over the whole of that question. They timidly refer to the conditions after the war and suggest that the revised wage scales to which the companies have agreed will afford very considerable advancement on the present lines and will offer to Africans reasonable satisfaction during the next few years.
I am amazed at the use of such words. What is the considerable advancement promised by the Report? What is this reasonable satisfaction, when the cost of living is rising and wants are increasing and when other influences are stirring the Africans to new aspirations? The use of language such as that is surely humbug in these circumstances. I suggest again that this is the touchstone of our liberal faith in Colonial administration, and some assurances must be given to the African workers on the matter. If the Africans cannot be admitted to the European trade unions, the Government must limit European employment and insist upon an increased quota of employment in supervisory jobs to the African workers. The entrance of European workers must not be permanently allowed, it should be controlled and the Government should declare that European employment must not prejudice the future prospect of the African workers in the industry. We cannot and dare not shut out the Africans in their own land. If he is to advance, the African must be allowed to exercise increasing industrial and political responsibility. It would be unfortunate for the British Government to accept the somewhat specious reasoning submitted by the Northern Rhodesian Government. Let me remind the House that the Africans regard this matter as one of cardinal importance in European Colonial policy.
I hope that our Colonial Ministers will come out boldly in their directions to the Northern Rhodesian Government on the matters that have been raised in the Report. I hope that the British Government will not delay action, and will not

rest complacent. Northern Rhodesia is one of the unhappy lands in our Colonial Empire, brimful of perplexing problems. This Report ought to be used in order to repair the past and to give an occasion for a sounder policy, based upon the wisdom, science and experience expressed in the many important Reports of recent years which have been written on the problems of this important Territory.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member in the many details and recommendations which he has addressed to the Government. I prefer to approach the matter from a slightly different angle and from a rather broader point of view. My excuse for intervening in this Debate is that I happen to have visited those territories which we are now discussing, and not very long ago. I think it was in 1938 that I spent a little time in the Copperbelt. [Interruption.] I know it was a long time, but however short, it was spent in intensive and, I hope, intelligent examination of the conditions which prevailed there. I was not at all surprised to hear that disturbances had broken out in the Copperbelt last year. Even in 1938 I left that portion of Northern Rhodesia with a feeling of anxiety and indeed of depression. Even then the feeling was tense. It was obvious that the seeds of unrest had been very widely sown in rather favourable land. Although I was not surprised to hear that disturbances had broken out, I was surprised at the particular occasion on which they had done so. They broke out in connection with a dispute on economic questions affecting the mineworkers. The main purpose of my intervention now is to press upon the Government that although this dispute may have been the occasion of the disturbance, it was not the cause. The cause goes much deeper and affects the whole of our administration in Northern Rhodesia in recent years.
Many factors affect the situation, but I cannot hope to enter into all of them now. I will mention one or two of them. I take a rather more favourable attitude toward the Government of Northern Rhodesia, and to the Imperial Government certainly, than the hon. Member who has just spoken seems to do. The native policy as applied to the Territory in Northern Rhodesia, as has been expressed by successive Secretaries of


State in this country, is a liberal one, but my complaint is that that policy has not been fully implemented in Northern Rhodesia. No doubt, there are several reasons for that. One of them, undoubtedly, is the fact that in recent years the Government of Northern Rhodesia have been very much handicapped by financial considerations. I do not think that the Government of Northern Rhodesia are properly susceptible to the serious charges that have been made by my hon. Friend. I do not say that that Government have been as active as they could have been—I do not think they have for a moment—but I am bound to say that when I was out there I found among those holding responsible positions in that Territory men who were only too anxious to implement the policy of the Imperial Government in the matter of native affairs with the fullest understanding and sympathy, but they were handicapped. They were handicapped by financial considerations more than anything else perhaps, but that does not do away with the fact that results in Northern Rhodesia have really been lamentable. The position of the medical services in Northern Rhodesia has very little to be said in its favour.
With regard to research into agriculture and other matters which vitally affect the life of the community, much more should have been done. In regard to education, there has certainly been a very great lack of use of such opportunities as were available to the Government of that Territory. I would say in passing that the native of Northern Rhodesia attaches tremendous importance to education. Wherever you go and speak to the natives in that territory you find that they attach great importance to the giving to future generations opportunities of education which they themselves have not enjoyed. I am glad that the Report of the Commission draws particular attention to this matter. In paragraph 197 it says—and I am afraid that this is true:
There is, for many years to come, likely to be a wide gulf between the standard and outlook upon life of the European and the African worker—a gulf that can only be bridged by the continued education of the African and his children.
That is a matter which cannot be too strongly impressed upon the Government of Northern Rhodesia.
There is another element which has been largely responsible for these circumstances in Northern Rhodesia. At the present time, when we are engaged in a life-and-death struggle in which all parts of the British Empire are playing their magnificent parts, I do not wish to say anything which may offend the susceptibilities of any part of the Empire, but I am bound to say that a lot of the trouble in Northern Rhodesia has been caused by the incursion into that Territory of an undesirable element from the South. They are people who are not imbued with the spirit of the native policy as expressed by the Imperial Government. In fact, they are dead against it. They are acting on that basis in their treatment of the natives in the Copperbelt of Northern Rhodesia. Many of them are undesirable people in themselves. They are men who have held mining jobs in South Africa, then a little bit further North, and then a little bit further North still; they are, in fact, "hitch-hikers" who have lost their jobs in other parts of Africa and who have then made their way up to Northern Rhodesia.
The extraordinary thing is that many of those people sincerely believe that the Government of Northern Rhodesia, quite contrary to what my hon. Friend said, are much too partial to the natives, and they have a grievance against the Government of Northern Rhodesia because they say that the natives get greater attention, and even favours, from the Government of Northern Rhodesia than the Europeans get. That spirit is very largely responsible for what happened in the Copperbelt last year. I must say that I am very surprised indeed to find in the Report of this Commission that they seem to be taken in by the officers of the Northern Rhodesia Mine Workers' Union, which is a body representing the spirit of which I am now talking. This Report puts it on record that the Northern Rhodesia Mine Workers Union
objected strongly to the exploitation and cheap labour of the African who was trained or being trained to do work normally regarded as the European's prerogative.
That is the hypocrisy of this type of man. They tell you, "We are all in favour of the African being given every opportunity, but only if he is given the same wages as the European," knowing full well that in the circumstances and conditions which exist in Northern Rhodesia


at the present time, it is an absolute bar to the giving to the native of the greater opportunities which I think he ought to have. I have nothing but praise for the managements responsible for running the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia. They are a fine body of men and have shown a great deal of enterprise in regard to conditions, even in the compounds, for the natives, and also in regard to educational facilities. I can also say a good deal in favour of the bulk of the colliery managers, many of whom come from England, Wales and Scotland. I only wish that there were more employed there. They make a very great difference indeed to the outlook and the prosperity of the industry. But there is this other undesirable element. We talk about wages and conditions of labour of natives employed in these mines, and I am all in favour of giving them every opportunity of reaching higher, more responsible and better-paid positions than are open to them at the present time, but I do say that that raises an issue of a very wide character with which I cannot hope to deal in a Debate of this sort, affecting as it does the whole life of the native population of Northern Rhodesia.
My hon. Friend referred to the effects which this industrialisation is having upon the tribal organisations in Northern Rhodesia. The population of Northern Rhodesia will never find its livelihood from the Copperbelt. It has got to be concerned with and depend largely upon what I may call the agricultural side. It is there that you find the real native life and the real tribal organisation, without which you cannot hope to carry on successfully in Northern Rhodesia. Whatever may be the necessity for industrialisation in Northern Rhodesia, that alone will not affect the future prosperity of the territory of Northern Rhodesia. You have to get back to the native soil and the native organisations, and, whatever you do by way of developing the industrial prosperity of Northern Rhodesia, you still have to bring back your mind to the fundamental fact that the life of Northern Rhodesia mainly depends upon districts which are outside, and that it is necessary to encourage agricultural progress, which unfortunately is developing very slowly indeed at present.
Therefore I do not want the Government to regard the disturbances in the Copperbelt as a purely economic question. They represent something much deeper than that, and I can only hope that there will in future be much greater co-operation than there has been in the past between the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the European population. I found that among the European population there were many people who were indifferent to the policy of the Government. They were not out of sympathy with it, but felt that it was nothing to do with them and was a matter purely for the Government. I think that is a very wrong attitude. It does not apply to all the Europeans there, for there are in Northern Rhodesia many very fine Europeans imbued with British tradition and a fine liberal outlook, but there are others who try to avoid any responsibility for native policy by saying that it is a matter for the Government. I do not think that in the past there has been sufficient co-operation between the Government of Northern Rhodesia and the European population. I hope that one of the results of this Report will be a greater co-operation in future, and a greater understanding of these essential elements in the development of the Territory.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: We have listened to two exceedingly interesting speeches based on very special knowledge. I do not want to attempt to cover the ground that has already been dealt with except to say that I most heartily support what has been said about the supreme importance of our Government and this Parliament making it clear that we cannot in any way approve the creation of an industrial colour bar, and I would therefore urge the Minister to do even more than he has already done to impress upon the Government of Northern Rhodesia the great importance of this issue, and that we cannot be satisfied with the way in which that Government have virtually shelved or set aside the very modest recommendation of the Commission. Their reason, which I believe is in the White Paper, is that places have to be kept open for skilled European workers in the mines who are absent on war service, and one can quite understand that. But they also claim to have an obligation to the skilled


European workers who have come in temporarily to take those places. Surely the obligation that they have to the African who is a native of the country must outweigh any consideration of that kind. The men who have come in temporarily have come in just to make money. One cannot begrudge them that, but they have no interest in the country apart from their temporary occupation; they have no intention of settling there, and they cannot therefore be regarded as having the same claim as the African natives whose whole life is bound up with the life of the country.
I would also like to say a few words about one or two special measures which I have ventured to press for in Questions and which I believe are having the very sympathetic consideration of the Undersecretary and of the Colonial Office. The Commission recommended the planting of trees in the compounds in order to make them more suitable for living in for the large African population which lives there, not just for a few months, but for years. So far there has been no response from the Northern Rhodesian Government. The Under-Secretary has informed the House that he is in communication on the matter with the Government of Northern Rhodesia, and in view of its great importance from the point of view of the health and happiness of the dwellers in the compounds, I would beg him to urge upon that Government that the Colonial Office consider this to be a matter of real importance to the well-being of the people, and one which ought not to be put off.
There are other matters which I have also ventured to raise in Questions, in regard to which we had yesterday a very encouraging reply from the Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend then informed the House that he was prepared to recommend consideration of the appointment of women welfare workers, with special skill in handicraft work, to help the women who are living permanently in the compounds. One of the tragedies of the sudden industrial development of Northern Rhodesia has been the complete divorce of the life of such a large number of Africans from all their native traditions and former way of life. They had a very real civilisation, although of a primitive type, but it has been taken away from them by the industrial conditions of the compound and nothing ade-

quate has been put in its place. The African woman in the village has to educate her children in a simple way; not, of course, by book education, but by character and life training, and her garden is an essential part of that method of education. It is also a most important part of her life in as much as the time she spends in it gives her joy as well as work. She also has to prepare the meals for her husband and family. When she gets to the compound all that is taken away. There is no garden; she has no longer any need to prepare meals, because part of the payment received by the worker is given in rations which are supplied cooked if desired, and the simple life of the family is destroyed and nothing is put in its place. The married women, some of them resident for years in the compound, have practically nothing to do for a large part of their time. It inevitably leads to demoralisation, and I therefore rejoice that the matter is being taken up.
I hope the Government will continue to press for the development of handicraft training and other work of that kind, which will provide a healthy spare-time interest for the women in the compounds. I would also beg them to press for the provision of gardens. It is not merely a question of a material benefit for the family; it means much more than that—it means a spiritual benefit. It is desirable for the woman herself, who in her normal village life spends so much time in her garden, and it is desirable for her children. If the industrial community is not to be permanently divorced from the land, it is essential that there should be garden allotments available for the workers, and that there should also be school gardens in connection with the schools. We do not want to see the mining and industrial population permanently divorced from the main life of the African community, which in Northern Rhodesia, as has been pointed out, is necessarily largely agricultural. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has the interest of the worker at heart in this matter, and that both the Secretary of State and he can be trusted to take a long-sighted view of the problem. I hope that they will press upon the Government of Northern Rhodesia the need for a long-term policy based upon respect for the


rights of the African and a determination to ensure for him in future the fullest possible measure of development.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): I am sure the House will wish me, at the outset, to refer to the grievous news which has just reached us from Northern Rhodesia that the Governor died very suddenly yesterday. It is a strange coincidence that we should be having this Debate the day following his death. Sir John May bin had been Governor of the Territory since August, 1938, and in the years which have elapsed since then he had given signal proof of his capacity as an administrator. He had previously had nearly 25 years' experience of Colonial affairs. He had great charm of manner, and his outstanding qualities of tact and sympathy and his sterling character won him the esteem and admiration of those who knew him. The loss of such a distinguished public servant would at any time have been grievous, but in these critical days it is even more grievous. I am sure the House will wish the Colonial Office to convey to the relatives its deep sympathy in their loss.
I would also like to pay a tribute to the Commission which was responsible for the Report that we are debating. I consider the Commission, made up of Sir John Foster, Sir Walter Buchanan-Smith, and Mr. Dalgleish, a well-balanced Commission. There is no doubt that it has got on with its work with commendable speed. I make no complaint about my hon. Friends raising this question to-day. Their very great interest in Colonial affairs is well-known to the House. To the speeches which have been made we take no exception, although my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) was perhaps a little critical. It must be remembered that we are dealing with a problem which has arisen very largely from the rapid development of a new industry in a territory which was always regarded as a very poor one. The Copperbelt was first discovered only in 1925. From then until 1929, there was progress. There was a setback owing to the world depression of 1931–32, but from 1934 there has been considerable progress. I think it would be worth while, in order to give a background to this discussion, to refer, in terms of

figures, to the progress made. In 1935 the copper exports from the Copperbelt were to the value of £5,000,000; in 1937 they had increased to £11,000,000; and during the first six months of 1940 the total amount exported was to the value of £6,000,000.
Seeing that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the contribution of this industry to the Territory, it is well that we should take note of the fact that, whereas in 1925–26 the revenue of Northern Rhodesia amounted to £370,000, it had almost doubled by 1939, while this year the revenue for the territory is estimated at £2,500,000. It is interesting to note that of that amount the Income Tax is expected to yield £1,500,000. In 1938 the Income Tax receipts from the mining companies alone amounted to no less than 79 per cent. of the total tax collected. There has been a tremendous development, not only with regard to output and revenue, but in the number of people employed in the Copper-belt. In 1930 the number was 15,000. We had then the development to which I have referred. In 1932 the number slumped to 7,000. At the present time the number is from 26,000 to 28,000. That, of course, does not include the Europeans employed. They vary between 3,500 and 3,800—in other words, at the rate of one European to every 10 Africans in the Copperbelt. The importance of this industry can be judged from the fact that the amount of copper at present being produced in Northern Rhodesia is about 300,000 tons a year. This gives the industry a good place in world production. The Territory has overtaken Canada, which was formerly the greatest producer of copper in the world. The reserves of this valuable high-grade ore in the Territory amount to about 750,000,000 tons, so the source of the Territory's prosperity may be regarded as permanent.
We must not overlook the fact that the rapid development to which I have referred has entirely altered the complexion of this part of the Territory, and has been admittedly the cause of very much industrial strife. It was because of the strike of 1940 that the Commission was appointed. My hon. Friend referred to the delay in the publication of the Report. The delay was largely due to communications having to pass between Northern Rhodesia and this country. I might add


that had the Commission been appointed by the Colonial Office here there would have been a certain amount of delay, for the same reason. My hon. Friend will realise the difficulties of communication and of transport. We have the Report before us. The Colonial Office, in addition to submitting the Report, have submitted a statement, giving the recommendations and dealing with the result of the negotiations between the Northern Rhodesian Government and the mine managers. I trust that the submission of a statement in that form has been of great assistance. I should mention that I think that, taking everything into consideration, the mining companies deserve a tribute for the way in which they co-operated with the Government over this problem. When you examine the changes which have taken place, you find that the companies have not only conceded almost everything asked for in the Report of the Commission, but in some cases have gone a little farther. The acceptance by the mining companies of the recommendations, and what they have done in addition, are, in my opinion, proof of their co-operation. My hon. Friend dealt with the cause of the dispute and also with the wages question and other attendant questions.
I shall not deal at any length with the cause of the dispute, as time is going on, and we are very anxious to close this Debate in order to get on with the other matters which are to come on after this Debate has finished. I shall therefore not go back into its history, but come straight away to the question of wages. There was one thing to which my hon. Friend did not refer when he complained about the amount of wages paid in the compound. He did not mention the fact that, in addition to wages, houses were provided, and food, not only for the worker, but for members of his family, and also a certain allowance for the renewal of clothes, all of which, of course, are an addition to the wages which are paid to the African workers.

Mr. Creech Jones: I took the allowances for granted; everyone knows that they are made. I was merely trying to get a contrast between the total cash wage bill and the other income from the industry.

Mr. Hall: I agree that people who know the conditions of the Copperbelt know that, in addition to the wages that are

paid, there are other allowances given, and when one comes to balance the wages and the value of what is given in addition, I am not sure whether that which is given in addition to wages does not exceed the amount of the wages that are paid. But I want to put it on record that, in addition to wages, there are these other outgoings. Far be it from me to say that I am entirely satisfied with the amount of wages paid even in accordance with this recommendation, but I am sure that my hon. Friend, as the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. Ernest Evans) has already done, will see that you cannot relate the wages paid to all Africans in the Copperbelt to the wages paid to Europeans, nor the wages paid to the Africans in Northern Rhodesia with the wages paid to the people in this country. The only way in which you can relate wages is to relate them to those which are paid in the territory itself.

Mr. Creech Jones: Not altogether.

Mr. Hall: I am not suggesting that they should be entirely related and kept down to the level of the wages which are paid, but we have to take into consideration the relationship as between the one and the other. I would call the attention of my hon. Friend to paragraph 26 of the Report, which points out that until 1926, when industrial development on a large scale commenced, there were very few Africans who had been employed in semiskilled work, and a large number who had done nothing but rough labour, for which only 5s. per month, plus food, was paid.

Mr. Creech Jones: Scandalous.

Mr. Hall: I agree, but even at the present time the Commission report that, relating the wages, previously given in the Copperbelt to those which are paid on the railways, in agriculture and in secondary industries, they are not excessive but are in excess. Let me take the wages as they have been fixed in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission. I am not going to say that substantial increases have been agreed to, but increases have been agreed upon. If my hon. Friend or any hon. Member in this House will look at the statement which was issued with this Report, he will see that the maximum has been increased, in some instances, from 50s. per ticket to


100s. per ticket. The surface maximum has increased from 40s. per ticket to 80s. per ticket. The minimum has increased by 2s. 6d. per ticket, which is not very much. As my hon. Friend has said, it is about a penny a day. That is so, but he himself got confused in connection with the payment of these wages, and I can understand it. I had for many years some experience in dealing with the pay tickets of South Wales miners, and the way in which these wages are assessed and arrived at is almost as complicated as was the case in South Wales. He said that the 2s. 6d. per ticket cost-of-living bonus was regarded as an efficiency bonus and was only paid in accordance with the wishes or at the discretion of the compound manager. May I assure him that that is not so. The cost-of-living bonus is paid because of the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Creech Jones: May I point out that the suggestion was very clearly made that the compound manager may deduct from that bonus in the light of his views as to indiscipline or inefficiency on the part of the worker?

Mr. Hall: I feel sure that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in connection with that bonus. It may be that, with regard to other efficiency bonuses, the compound manager has the power which he has ascribed to him, but as far as that bonus is concerned, it is purely a cost-of-living bonus. I have stated that, in addition to wages, there are free rents, house accommodation for the married, with free rations for the family, and there is a bonus system for efficiency and other purposes, and then we come to the question of clothing.

Mr. Creech Jones: This is purely on a question of fact. The Commission recommended the deduction from bonus for disciplinary purposes but this was unacceptable to the Northern Rhodesian Government.

Mr. Hall: There are bonuses given for efficiency work and good conduct, and the compound manager can interfere with a bonus given for efficiency and good conduct, but he cannot interfere with a bonus that is given to meet the increased cost of living. In addition to the wages referred to, there is an allowance for clothing, which in some of the mines was not

given. Free clothing is given for the first ticket for six months, and then for every other ticket 2s. 6d. is given for the replacement of clothing that is worn out, and a certain amount of clothing is given. Personally, I do not like this system. I see in it too much of the operation of the old company shop in the early days in this country, but here we have to take the position as we see it at the present time.
My hon. Friend dealt with the question of colour bar, as did also the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Wales. He said that the kernel of British Colonial policy was the question of the proper treatment of the natives in whatever territory they were, and he referred to the policy of successive Secretaries of State. I can assure my hon. Friend that that policy is not in any way changed. I made the position quite clear in this House in reply to a Question when I said that the Government did not stand for the colour bar in that Territory. It is the accepted policy of His Majesty's Government to give the Africans of Northern Rhodesia, as well as those of all other Dependencies in tropical Africa, opportunities for qualifying for any post or employment for which they are capable, and to supply the requisite educational training. It is important to create conditions in which an increasing number of applicants can be trained for large-scale employment—agricultural, medical, educational, technical, legal, clerical and the like. But we must remember that the pace of this movement depends largely on our ability to provide trained African teachers and give adequate education. It is to supply this demand that such colleges as Achimota and Makarere were founded, and I am glad to say that they are fulfilling their purpose.
My hon. Friend referred to the settlement of Africans in certain positions now occupied by Europeans. The Commission definitely did deal with that matter, and it has now been referred to the Governor for consultation with the mine managers to see what can be done. It will be remembered that the Commission recommended that mines managements should consider with representatives of the Government and the mine-workers' union as to the positions, not now open to the African worker, to which he should be encouraged to advance, and the Northern Rhodesian Government have ex-


pressed their readiness to initiate such discussions in due course. Why have they suggested that the discussions should take place in due course? The reason is that certain commitments have been entered into by Europeans who have left these mines to take up military service. In exactly the same way as we passed legislation here, through the Military Service Act, which guarantees to any person who has gone into the Forces that his position will be kept open for him when he returns to his job, so the Northern Rhodesian Government have the matter in mind. That is the reason for their reluctance to open up these negotiations.
As I have pointed out in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey), my Noble Friend is already in communication with the Government of Northern Rhodesia with a view to expediting these discussions as between them and the mine managements. But it is not so easy as a number of my hon. Friends seem to think. It must be remembered that the Commission specifically referred to the attitude of the European mine-workers' union. The union said they had no objection to the advancement of the African provided he undertook work which is now done by the Europeans at the same rate of wages as that received by the Europeans. After all, as one who is interested in the trade union movement, as I know my hon. Friend is, he will admit that the trade union side of this matter must be borne in mind in dealing with the difficulties which are likely to arise as a result of turning out Europeans from their jobs to make room for Africans, if knowing that when they are turned out the African will be employed at a rate of wages far less than the rate paid to Europeans.
The very basis of our trade unionism would be blown sky high unless the rights of trade unions, as they are in our own country, are safeguarded when skilled jobs are done by what may be regarded as unskilled persons. For all that, there should be no deterrent to every possible opportunity being given to the African for the purpose of training himself to be fit for jobs when they become available, and I think the difficulties will be overcome. My hon. Friend also referred to the bitter resentment caused among African workers at the terms used about them in the Press and the sneering atti-

tude which is not infrequently used towards them by European mine-workers. It is true that concrete instances of the conduct complained of were very difficult to secure, but the matter was taken up by the Commission with the mine managers, and the officials of the Northern Rhodesia Mine-workers' Union undertook to check this as far as possible. I trust their efforts will be successful, for, if I may express my own feelings and, I am sure, those of Members of this House, I would say if there is any truth in the statement, it is not British to treat other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations in the same way that it has been suggested Africans have been treated in this case.
My hon. Friend dealt, too, with the question of trade-union development. The Commission dealt with this matter at length and pointed out the difficulty at the present time of organising trade unions among African workers. There is a real difficulty, for in many cases education has not gone very far with Africans, and in most instances it has not begun at all. But to enable Africans to have the means whereby their grievances can be voiced to the mining companies and managers, the Commission, rightly, in my opinion, developed and made use of the "elder" system, which was the only system on the Copperbelt which had some semblance of acting for representatives of the Africans. I can assure my hon. Friend that as far as the Colonial Office is concerned, no obstacle will be put in the way of the Africans organising themselves into trade unions whenever they are ready to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Welsh University referred to the need for the development of education, but if he knew the whole facts, I think he would admit that there is a tendency now to increase facilities for education in the Copperbelt. This year some £14,000 has been set aside for additional facilities, and if he sees the progress which has been made in the daily attendance at schools, he will find a sure indication that facilities have considerably increased during the last three or four years. In 1938 the average daily attendance rose to 1,659, against 587 in 1937, whereas in 1940 the actual enrolment was 3,075. The Government of Northern Rhodesia are fully alive to the need for additional educational facilities.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of the stabilisation of the industrial population on the Copperbelt. This, again, is a matter which will take a considerable time before it will develop. We are dealing with a new industrial area, and I would like to point out that on the Copperbelt itself, among very representative people, there is not complete agreement as to the advisability of stabilising the urban population. The missionaries on the Belt feel that there should be a stabilised population, whereas the Bishop of Northern Rhodesia and other representative people think it is a great mistake that there should be a stabilised urban population. But there is one thing that we can all be agreed upon, and that is that where the Africans take their wives and children there should be developed adequate housing provision and facilities of all kinds to enable them to live the kind of life which we think they ought to be allowed to live. I agree with my hon. Friend that where food is provided and cooked, and there is very little work for the women-folk to do, it tends to cause discontentment. The mine managers recognise that difficulty, and the progress that is now being made with regard to additional housing is such that there is an indication that this matter is being fully attended to by the Government and the mine managers. Not only is additional housing accommodation being provided, but there is also better housing accommodation.
I think we may rightly say that we look forward to very much better housing conditions and greater facilities for the married folk who are settling in the Copperbelt. It may mean after a while there will be a stabilised industrial population there, but it must be remembered that copper is subject to fluctuations, as was seen in the Congo in the world depression of 1930–32. The unemployed people in the Congo, torn away from their native villages and native life, suffered severe privations as a result of being thrown out of work. The fact that from 1929 to 1932 the number of Africans there fluctuated from between 12,000 and 14,000 in 1929 to 7,000 in 1932 is an indication of possible fluctuations in the industry which may lead to a considerable amount of distress, and to what one might call "Special Areas" in Northern Rhodesia

such as we have had in South Wales and Durham.
It is impossible for me now to deal with all the points raised by my hon. Friend. I assure him that the Colonial Office and the Government of Northern Rhodesia are fully seized of the points he has raised. We shall see that the attention of the Government is drawn to the Debate which has taken place to-day. In conclusion, I want to say that I am not satisfied that all that could be done is being done for welfare, although we have had some glowing tributes to the work done by the mining companies in Northern Rhodesia towards the medical attention of the African workers. Where is there any industry in this country where the mine-worker or industrial worker is weighed before he begins work, and is weighed every month to see whether his weight has been reduced, and if it has, is referred to a medical man for the purpose of ascertaining the cause, and if illness is the cause, is sent to a hospital to see whether his health can be restored? I do not suggest that everything is what it ought to be. I do not like the fact that the more beer that is sold in the Copperbelt, the more money is set aside for welfare work; but we have to keep in mind the fact that it took nearly 60 years of mining development in this country before we were able to establish the Miners' Welfare Fund, which has revolutionised recreational and welfare work in the mining districts. The possibilities are that some time in the future we may be able to get in the Copperbelt a miners' welfare fund on the same basis as we have one in this country.
With regard to plots of trees and gardens, I can assure the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities that I am in complete sympathy with him. We are in communication with the Government of Northern Rhodesia to see that amenities and facilities are provided in the Copperbelt, This is a young and developing industry, in which it is imperative that the workers should be content. While it is true to say that much work has been done, there is still more to be done. Do not let the mistakes of the past be repeated. We have seen the mistakes that were made in the early development of industry in this country, and I trust that those responsible for the Copperbelt and for industry generally in the Colonies will benefit by the experience


we have had here. Let the mine owners in the Copperbelt and the Government of the Territory now get together and establish such conditions for the people living in the Copperbelt that the sad circumstances which necessitated the Commission will soon be forgotten, and a new era of happiness and contentment for the workers and their dependants will be established in that part of the Empire. This, and this alone, will bring much satisfaction not only to the African workers but to the Territory as a whole. It will bring prosperity to the mine owners and the Government. It will bring great satisfaction to the Colonial Office and the people of this country.

LIMITATION OF SUPPLIES (RETAIL DISTRIBUTIVE INDUSTRY).

Mr. Butcher: It is a long way, even for an Adjournment Debate, from the conditions attaching to the production of raw materials in a part of the Colonial Empire to the matter which I want to bring to the attention of the House, namely, the limitation of supplies as it affects the retail distributive industry. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies said that production of copper was a new and growing industry; but retail distribution is one of the oldest businesses, and at the present time it is certainly not a growing industry. There is rather a definite tendency—and quite rightly so—for it to decline. My purpose in raising the matter is to ask for some guidance from the Board of Trade. There is a widespread feeling of doubt among retailers of all classes as to what is to be their future and what steps they should take to assist the national effort to the maximum of their ability. There is a desire to have some definite guidance on this point.
At the same time, I do not disguise that there is widespread anxiety that old-established family businesses, and the stores that have developed from them, are very likely to be handicapped if there is to be telescoping of retail distribution on the lines laid down by the President of the Board of Trade in a recent Debate. There is, indeed, already a feeling that the chain stores have many advantages which they are using to the utmost against the man whose business is limited to one locality. The chain stores are able to switch goods

which they cannot sell readily in depressed or evacuated districts to areas where trade is good, with the result that they have in those areas more on their shelves for sale than have the family businesses. I cannot quite understand the attitude of the Board of Trade in this matter. The President of the Board of Trade told the House that he could not say that he was ready with his plans. My right hon. Friend has a great business reputation behind him, and I hope he will not lose his business habits now that he has entered Parliament. Surely, he will realise that it is the duty of any prudent business man to have his plans laid right from the raw material to the finished product. I think we are entitled to have far more guidance on this matter than we have had so far. It would be a terrible thing if, after having made great sacrifices in leaving the City and coming here to give us the benefit of his experience, he were to go down in history as "Oliver the Unready." I am trying to prevent that happening by providing the representative of his Department with an opportunity of giving us some assurance on this matter.
Let us examine the thoughts disclosed by the President of the Board of Trade, which I consider disturbing. He says that the relative balance between the share of trade now enjoyed by the multiple stores, the Co-operative societies, and that enjoyed by the small retailer should not be disturbed. I am bound to say that I do not see any reason why any balance should be observed if by disturbing it we can make a more effective contribution to the war effort. There are, however, certain essentials in the retail trade which should be preserved. First, there is the Cooperative society. I am not a Co-operative society man, and frequently when the right hon. Gentleman who is now First Lord of the Admiralty urged their case from the Opposition bench I thought he over-stated it. I think they have received very favourable treatment in the past. I do not, however, disguise the fact that they make a definite appeal to many people with whom they deal, and that their relations with their customers must be preserved in the national interest. They are local in character and they understand the people they serve. Therefore, I think they merit preservation in the future.
Then there is the family business. I am not going to make any sob appeal


for what is called the small shopkeeper. I am merely putting this question forward with a view to enabling the retail distributive trade to make its greatest contribution to the national effort. The family business makes a very great contribution indeed. There is constant personal contact between the proprietor and the customer, and there is local knowledge of requirements and flexibility in the treatment of people who are temporarily embarrassed. All these things are of definite help and assistance at the present time. Indeed, this class of the community has made a great contribution to the welfare of the country in the past.
Finally, there is the case to be made for the large store—the store with many departments. The large store has, after all, grown up from the family business. They marshal together under one roof many requirements and offer perhaps a variety of certain articles which cannot be obtained elsewhere. They too, with the others I have mentioned—the Cooperative society and the family trader—should be preserved at all costs. They lend themselves very satisfactorily to the work of distribution. I need not stress the point of the Co-operative Society. Family businesses are able to provide employment for many who would not be able to accept ordinary employment, and make temporary arrangements with neighbours and business associates, and thereby to telescope themselves on the lines the President of the Board of Trade has suggested. Stores are equally able to lend themselves to war-time working, because on the whole they maintain a comparatively large percentage of elderly assistants. They have good systems of staff training which lends itself to the introduction of newcomers into the industry, or the retraining of those who have left for marriage or other reasons.
At Question Time I made a suggestion which, I think, the President referred to in his speech. He stated it had been suggested that he should take a course actually diverting trade from the big chain stores into the hands of small retailers. He stated that he must not do that and that he must be impartial. I hope this idea of impartiality will not weaken our war effort in the same way as the idea of neutrality has weakened collective security. After all, we are en-

titled to look to the President of the Board of Trade for something more than impartiality. We are entitled to look to him to organise trade in this country in the best possible way, so that it can make a valuable contribution to the war effort. He is really responsible for the production of plans to enable the retail trade to play its full part in the war, in exactly the same way as the Minister of Labour is responsible for plans to enable manpower and woman-power to take its full part.

Mr. Lipson: Is not that consistent with impartiality?

Mr. Butcher: I am not at the moment weighing the possibility of being consistent or inconsistent. All I am saying is that it is desirable the President of the Board of Trade should direct his attention to the mobilisation of the maximum resources of which any industry may be capable, irrespective of whether it inflicts hardship on one section of that industry more as compared with another—just as in the case of man-power, where greater hardship is inflicted on certain people than on others. The President of the Board of Trade is faced with two problems. Firstly, to secure the maximum employment of those who remain in the retail industry, and, secondly, to release the largest number of workers possible who are suitable for diversion into the war effort. I suggest that it is in the chain stores where that can be done, namely, by rapidly diverting the supplies which they are at present receiving. It is in that sphere that the President of the Board of Trade will most effectively secure his end. These stores employ a large number of easily trained young women, who in most cases are unmarried, of suitable age for transference. By so doing, very valuable floor-space could be passed over to the Ministry of Food for the establishment of restaurants. The Minister of Food would have the advantage of sites which have been picked by some of the keenest people in the art of appealing to the populace. At the same time my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would secure an easily trainable body of young people to take their part in the national war effort.
I hope that when I mentioned two firms by name in my earlier Question, it will not be thought that I have any particular animosity against them. I mentioned


Messrs. Woolworth and Marks and Spencer, but I have no hostility against them. Nor are any of the remarks I make in this Debate affected by any interest, because I have none in any branch of the retail trade. Having made my position quite clear, I am bound to say that the record of these firms is not such as entitles them to the benefit of the protection of the President of the Board of Trade. These are the people who have gone into the country towns and villages and have bought up sites over the heads of the local traders who have been established for years, and, having bought the sites, have pulled down buildings of considerable interest and value and put up in their place horrid red or green structures. Let it not be forgotten that at a time of acute industrial and economic depression in this country, these firms were making profits running into millions of pounds, were declaring substantial dividends, employing their girl labour for three days in the week, and forcing the girls to go to the Employment Exchange to draw their dole for the other days.
If it is a question of equity to these firms and a question of the maximum production of the country, freeing valuable labour and space, I hope the President will let them take their chance, as so many drawn from all classes of the community have to do. If, however, impartiality is to be the policy of the Board of Trade, why was not this introduced a little earlier? Why should not this balance between these various forms of retail distribution have been introduced, let us say, after the last war, when the problems were not dissimilar. We have certain small businesses in which the owners and their sons have fought in three wars. I know a case where a substantial business is being carried on by a man of nearly 80 with his two daughters-in-law, while his sons are serving in the Armed Forces. I hope no step will be taken by the Government which will jeopardise the position of people like that. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to make as clear a statement as is possible of the definite plans for the retail distributive industry to play its maximum part in the war effort, and to take special care that the position of businesses whose owners or managing directors or their sons have gone into the Armed Forces, is in no way prejudiced.
We know that this consolidation of distribution must come. I want to know what assistance is to be given by the Government in the matter? Is there to be assistance such as is given by the Industrial and Export Council? Is it proposed that such advice and assistance will be available on a regional basis? I do not ask for any guarantee as to the position of the small man. He is willing, and he must in war-time take his lot with everyone else. But, on the other hand, there is a widespread feeling throughout the country that we are not waging this war so that the industry and commerce of the country will finish up in the hands of the banks and insurance companies, with boards of chartered accountants and no one to whom they are responsible. Already the trusts have started to buy up businesses in hard-hit areas. We want an assurance, therefore, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give it us. I hope that family businesses and large stores which have to endure diminution as the result of the war can be assured of the assistance of the Government in re-establishing themselves and that they shall not be subjected to unfair competition, but that all the efforts of the President will be directed to two ends, first, to extract from the distributive industry as a whole the maximum contribution that it can make to the war effort and, secondly, that there shall be no deterioration in those sections of this industry whose contribution to our national life is and will continue to be so valuable.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhonse): My hon. Friend at one period of his remarks said that no plan was yet evolved for safeguarding the interests of retail shops, and he hoped my right hon. Friend would not go down to history as "Oliver the Unready". We all hope that, but no more do we want him to go down to history as Oliver Twist, because I am certain the House would not wish that the screw should be put on before the necessity arises. The policy of the Board of Trade in this as in other matters is to take as long a view as we can but to meet problems as they arise. After all, the whole essence of government is that we must carry the governed along with us. The Board of Trade is prepared to lead, but it cannot lead along a path for which the country is not ready.
If my right hon. Friend had come forward with a plan for concentration of industry, like that which he outlined in the House a few weeks ago, six, nine or twelve months sooner, it would obviously have been impossible, because the necessity had not then arisen. It has become necessary now, and we have our scheme. But in the retail trade it is only just now that these Limitation of Supplies Orders are beginning to be widely felt in the shops and by consumers. We are not allowing ourselves to wander in the dark. We have in the Board of Trade a small section of about a dozen ladies and gentlemen who are called Area Distribution Officers. Their one and only task is to go round the country, each having a district allotted to him or her, to keep in touch with retailers in those districts and to keep the Board of Trade informed as to the problems of the retailers and the difficulties of consumers in acquiring any particular commodity. By that means we are aware of the many problems which arise from time to time and which must increasingly arise in the retail trade. These problems are in no way concerned with the concentration of industry. They arise because of the general shortage of supplies necessitated by war conditions.
My hon. Friend suggested telescoping of retail trade. It is not a very easy thing to telescope such an organisation as our retailers' organisations. It does not compare with telescoping the industries of the country, and, as my right hon. Friend said, even there the very smallest units would not be concentrated at all. There are some sections without doubt, where some form of telescoping is possible, and there it may and I think will come about, but I most profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend when he cavils at my right hon. Friend because he says he is going to be impartial. I do not think the time will ever come when a Minister will say that he is anything but impartial. It is clear that my hon. Friend has no illusions that he is impartial. He is death on the large store-keeper and on the fellow who goes into the small country town and because of his greater business acumen sets up a store there. We may not like it, but after all that is the modern trend of business, and it is not for the Board of Trade to use the war as a means of bringing about a change in that respect.
My hon. Friend put several specific questions. He asked us to be particularly careful to safeguard the owner of a business who goes into the Forces. The House and the country must be profoundly sympathetic with such a man, but it is difficult to see in what way the Government could help. After all, he is only one example of many forms of hardship which the war is inflicting, and I am afraid that I should be deceiving my hon. Friend were I to say that any special provision could be made for the man who went to the Armed Forces because he owned a small shop rather than the man who was in any other form of business, trade or profession. My hon. Friend asked whether any advice and assistance which was available would be available on a regional basis. It must, of course, be on a regional basis; otherwise, it would be of very little use because the problems of shopkeepers vary so much from district to district. Another question was with regard to the family business and the large store, and my hon. Friend asked that there should be no unfair competition and that there should be a guarantee of Government assistance to the owner of the family business who finds himself in difficulty. It is clearly impossible for the Government to give any such guarantee. The war is adversely affecting so large a section of the community that to give a guarantee in this direction would be grossly unfair in many other directions.
It is not easy at this stage to see in exactly what way the retail trade can react to the present conditions. The reports which are coming in show that the turnover has not materially decreased in many areas, although in other areas it has decreased. But we, and shopkeepers themselves, know that as time goes on there will be a marked decrease in turnover, and a time must arise—and we might as well face it—when it will be necessary for some small shopkeepers to charge excessive prices as a result of their reduced turnover or they will not get a livelihood out of their little shops. What is such a shopkeeper to do? Is he to go on until the time comes when he can buy less and less stores in replacement each week and has to live on his capital? He will use his discretion to a large extent, but it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for the suggestion that many small shopkeepers who see this time approaching should realise their present


stocks, invest the money in Government securities and find other jobs for the time being so that when the war is over they may go back to their shops with a certain amount of capital to re-equip them and enable them to start again. This, of course, is merely one suggestion as to a way in which the difficulty might be met.
With regard to the larger stores, there is undoubtedly a possibility of some form of telescoping. My right hon. Friend quoted an article from the "Draper's Record," in which they themselves suggested that it might not be impossible for one or two or three of these stores to get together and concentrate their businesses in one set of premises. I am sure the House will agree that it is far better that these matters should be brought about by suggestion and by an amicable arrangement by the shops themselves rather than that they should have a plan or a scheme forced down their throats by the Board of Trade. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Board of Trade are not oblivious to this problem. It is a problem that we have seen coming, and it is only with us partially, but it will get worse and worse during the months ahead. We hope that the shops themselves, so far as they can, will collaborate with the effort of the country by releasing voluntarily as much labour as possible. The Ministry of Labour have always the power to take what labour they need when they need it, but that is a sanction which we hope will not need to be used, because we think that these things can come about by agreement.
My right hon. Friend will not be persuaded to move from his position of impartiality. He wants to hold the balance fairly between the large storekeeper and the small shopkeeper. He does not want to be accused of using the war to alter according to his own desire the distribution which has grown up by long practice. It should be clearly understood that these two classes of business each in their own way fulfil a different service. The smaller shopkeeper has his personal body of clients, and he generally gives credit; the larger storekeeper has a greater variety of goods; both have their functions to fulfil, and I am certain that the House would not wish us to favour one rather than the other. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point, be-

cause it is a point of real importance, and I can assure him that the remarks he has made will be borne in mind.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS (GOVERNMENT GRANTS).

Major Milner: It will be within the recollection of the House that on 19th October last my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary issued a circular which provided that in respect of contracts for air-raid shelters entered into by local authorities after that date grants of 100 per cent. of the cost would be repaid to them. The question I desire to raise is the failure of the Government to make that grant retrospective. I am raising this question at the special request of the Association of Municipal Corporations, but I have reason to think that it has the support of the County Councils' Association, of the other local government associations, of the London County Council, and of the majority of local authorities throughout the country. That is most powerful and responsible support. I had hoped to have been able to call an even more powerful witness in support of my case. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has been for five or six years the principal protagonist of the view which I venture to put forward to-day. He does not usually hide his light under a bushel, and the House can only assume that, as he is not present to-day, he has thought that discretion is the better part of valour and has asked the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, whom we know to be extremely competent and who is in charge of some portion of the shelter work of the Government, to tell us, as I hope she will, whether the right hon. Gentleman is still of the same opinion as when he was on these Benches or whether, and I can hardly think this likely, his translation to the other side of the House has changed the view he then expressed.
However that may be, there is one preliminary observation which I should like to make and which it is due to the local authorities that I should make. It is clearly the duty of all of us to put forth our utmost efforts in the prosecution of the war, and the local authorities give way to no one in their determination to do their part. They have


had many responsibilities thrust upon them, and they have responded, almost without exception, cheerfully and manfully, but they do expect that they should have a fair deal in return. Now, Sir, the history of the particular matter which I am raising is a long one, going back to 1935, and I cannot hope, nor do I wish, to go through it in detail. It is sufficient for my purpose to say that throughout the whole of that period the local authorities, led for the most part by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, have pointed out that air-raid precautions are a national responsibility. They have never receded from that position. As recently as 3rd April last year my right hon. Friend himself clearly set out the principle when he led a deputation to the then Home Secretary, the present Lord President of the Council. He said:
The State should pay the whole cost of Civil Defence operations in war-time. The Civil Defence organisation is an essential part of our war organisation, and as its direction is in the hands of the Government the Government should bear the whole cost
He pointed out, and I adopt his argument in toto, that air-raid precautions are a part of National Defence and that there is no more reason why local authorities should bear the cost of air-raid shelters than that they should bear the cost of the Army, Navy or Air Force. Air-raid shelters are quite outside the field of the normal expenditure of local authorities. He went on to say:
If you want swift, clean-cut decisive action the State should bear the whole cost, and it is unjust, improper and not conducive to good administration for the State to take complete control and not to pay the whole cost
Now my right hon. Friend appears to have convinced his colleagues in the present Government that the 100 per cent. principle was the right one, but when he comes to put it into force he does not make it retrospective. He admits the principle but leaves the inequalities, the anomalies and the injustices unremedied. For what is the position? All the progressive authorities, all those in areas which are termed vulnerable areas, who did the right and proper thing by pushing forward with the provision of shelters, and have gone far to completing the work, will for many years have to bear a very substantial burden, whereas the slackers, the local authorities who neglected their

duties will receive payment in full as their reward and will have no such continuing burden.
Let me give a typical example. I wish that my right hon. Friend had been present, because I am sure that he would appreciate the particulars of his own borough of Hackney. The Borough Council of Hackney, which is a progressive and responsible authority, as I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree, has estimated its total air-raid shelter expenditure at £458,000. It has already expended more than £350,000—over 76 per cent.—leaving only 24 per cent, to be expended. By reason of the fact that it has gone ahead, that it did the right thing, it will have to bear an annual burden of thousands of pounds for some years to come. That is not by any means the worst example. There are many other places, particularly in vulnerable areas, where the rates have had to be put up owing to this burden which has been thrust upon them. Take the constituency of the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure she will be interested to hear about Jarrow. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not pay the whole cost of the shelters, then the ratepayers of Jarrow will be mulcted in something over £10,000. We all know that Jarrow is, or was, a very hard-hit part of the country, and I cannot think that the hon. Lady would willingly see her constituents mulcted in that sum, and I hope that one result of this Debate may be to bring her over to our side, and to prevail upon her to use her persuasive powers with the right hon. Gentleman in order that he, in turn, may bring persuasion to bear upon the Treasury. My own city of Leeds will have to bear a charge of £109,000, Manchester £331,000, Sheffield £295,000, Wolverhampton £27,000. The more progressive the city, the more it has done to protect its citizens, the greater the burden that has to be borne.
What is the answer of the Government as we understand it from Questions answered by my right hon. Friend in the House? He first said that it was due to the "Blitz." We all know that the "Blitz," or repeated "Blitzes," have covered a multitude of sins, but it does not seem to me that it in any way affects the question whether the 100 percent.


should be or should not be retrospective. Then he said that if local authorities did not do their duty he would have had to do it for them, and therefore he had better make the grant 100 per cent. and thus ensure them doing it. When pressed to make the grant retrospective he said that it was inexpedient to do so. In my submission nothing is expedient that is unjust, and if the justice of the claim is admitted then there can be no answer to the request that the 100 per cent. grant should be made retrospective. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has not pressed the Treasury as closely as he might have done, but if it be the Treasury who are at fault I wonder whether it has been pointed out that the failure to pay the full 100 per cent. will mean that local authorities will have to have recourse to borrowing; that borrowing will mean competition with the State; also that rates are a charge upon industry and will reduce the yield of the Excess Profits Tax. The principle of rating is quite inequitable in its application to air-raid shelters, because the occupiers of highly-rated premises require no more shelter than their less affluent neighbours, and, indeed, the great majority of well-to-do ratepayers will have erected shelters for themselves.
If the hon. Lady says that she and her right hon. Friend entirely agree with the grant of 100 per cent., but that at this late stage it cannot be made retrospective, then I want to quote from a speech made by the Home Secretary himself on 3rd April, 1940, on this very point. Representative as he was of the local authorities and speaking to the then Home Secretary, the present Lord President of the Council, the right hon. Gentleman said:
If any change is made and more favourable terms are given to local authorities in future, then they should have retrospective effect.
That is precisely the plea that I make today. I ask the hon. Lady to tell us frankly whether the right hon. Gentleman still agrees that the question of shelters is not one of local liability, but should be a wholly national charge. If so, will she tell us why the local authorities are not being granted by the right hon. Gentleman that full 100 per cent.? If she cannot give a favourable reply to-day, I hope that she will request the Home Secretary

to press the treasury and the Government again and to tell the Treasury what is, I believe, the case, that there is a very large body of opinion indeed in this House in support of the appeal which I am making. Apart altogether from the justice of the case and I ought to say that if the grant is made it will cost £9,000,000, it would bring about a feeling of good will and appreciation of fair dealing and an even more willing cooperation by local authorities than exists to-day—if that be possible—which would be of far greater value in the present troublous times than the expenditure of pounds, shillings and pence by the Government as a whole than by the varying bodies of ratepayers

Sir Annesley Somerville: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken presented such a clear case that I can usefully add very little to it. He said that nothing that was unjust could be expedient; it is very difficult to dispute that statement. He spoke on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, a comprehensive body. I also would like to speak on their behalf and also on behalf of the Non-County Boroughs' Association. In my own constituency I have two non-county boroughs. One of them provided the necessary shelters promptly, before 19th October. The other borough had certain causes for delay, such as correspondence with the Board of Education to determine the type of shelter. Sanction was required from the Board of Education, and that occasioned some delay. The result is that the prompt borough which had completed its shelters before 19th October receives 60 per cent. grant, while the other borough gets a grant of 100 percent.
It is very difficult to defend that distinction. The Home Secretary put up what we must regard as a very feeble case. We know from Holy Writ that there was an occasion when the eleventh-hour workers in the vineyard received the same remuneration as those who had borne the burden and heat of the day, but the Home Secretary gives 40 per cent. more to the eleventh-hour localities than to those who have borne the burden and heat of the day. Perhaps he thought it gave him a better case in his dealings with the Treasury. We are informed by the Parliamentary Secretary that the cost of


granting the full 100 percent. to the prompt authorities would be £9,000,000, and we can well understand the reluctance of the Treasury at this moment to hand out that sum of money, but I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he should treat the willing and prompt authorities in the same way as, or probably rather better than, he proposes to treat industrial concerns in the matter of their reserves. Without paying cash immediately to them, could he not grant them, say, War Bonds, to the extent of 40 per cent., to be the property of those prompt authorities, which they can deal with at the close of the war, without any deduction in respect of Income Tax? I believe that suggestion is worth considering.
This is a matter of simple justice. I would ask the Minister of Home Security, whose fine work for national security we appreciate so much, not to act in the interests of a certain number of boroughs which are dilatory, but to regard the interests of justice. I would ask him and the Treasury not to place at a disadvantage those efficient and prompt authorities which exist in every part of the country and which have done their duty by providing the shelters which were necessary to national security, but to do justice and not create an evil precedent.

Mr. Chater: I desire to reinforce the plea made for the reconsideration of this matter. From the commencement of hostilities my constituency of Bethnal Green wanted to fulfil its duties in regard to air-raid shelters, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it thoroughly carried out those duties. It seems a very great hardship, amounting almost to injustice, that that borough and others like it which made themselves responsible in the first onset of the war should now be treated unfavourably in comparison with those who more belatedly fulfilled those responsibilities.
There are other considerations which I would place before the hon. Lady. The borough which I represent is very poor, from the point of view of rateable value. Recently I made a tour of the constituency to view the destruction caused by one recent raid, which took place on 19th March. I am informed that about 700 houses were rendered uninhabitable in that raid. In other polling districts in the area

two-thirds of the houses are already uninhabitable. I want hon. Members to realise what that means to a borough like Bethnal Green. The number of properties from which rates can be raised has already decreased by over one-third. Even in normal times a 1d. rate from such a borough realised only about £1,800. Perhaps the hon. Lady appreciates what a heavy financial burden will be placed upon this borough if the grant is not made retrospective. I am not sure that the whole amount has been borrowed on account of air-raid shelters, but certainly it would appear that a very great proportion of it has relation to air-raid shelters when I say that the borough has recently been compelled to borrow something like £50,000 in order to meets its financial responsibilities in this respect.
One other point has to be taken into account. We cannot always have in mind just the present moment. The borough of Bethnal Green, like other boroughs in this country, has to live in the future as well as in the present, and when the war is over and when we shall want to attract people back again to follow their normal employment and their daily avocations as they did prior to the outbreak of the war, what will happen then with all this devastation of property and with the reconstruction which will have to be carried on? Not until this reconstruction is nearing completion shall we again be able to gather the rates in order to finance these responsibilities. In circumstances like that, businesses and manufacturers, instead of coming back to the place, will be repelled and will probably go elsewhere. These are very serious considerations.
My hon. Friend who introduced the subject made some reference to the ideas which he said the Minister of Home Security possessed before he became a Minister, and he said that he was rather curious to know whether the Minister had now changed those views. If the Minister's answer should be that circumstances have changed, I only have to point out that the circumstances have changed enormously in Bethnal Green, and they are very much more insistent in calling for some assistance now than they were when the Home Secretary held his previous views. So I hope that the pleas which are now being made, and which I hope will be echoed by other hon. Members,


will have the effect of producing relief in some form or other to boroughs such as I represent.

Mr. Brooke: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has initiated this subject to-day. I believe that I was the first Member to raise it in the House as long ago as last November, and nothing that has happened since has altered my original view that this is the gravest injustice that has been done by administrative action to local authority finance for many years. I would like also to put before the House this aspect. We can speak of the past and of the present, but we have also to look to the future. I am a member of a local authority, as are many other hon. Members present. If in future a local authority is offered a percentage grant for some work which the Government wishes it to do in the national interest, is the local authority likely, or is it not, to act speedily in response to the Government's request? This experience has shown local authorities that if they hang back they have a good and reasonable hope that the grant basis will be altered, and that the whole cost of the work will eventually be paid by the taxpayer and not by the ratepayer. Local authorities, rightly I think, have long memories and that will not be forgotten.
I am gravely surprised at so experienced a local authority man as the present Minister of Home Security introducing an action of this kind. The ratepayers, of course, know all about this. My peacetime home happens to be in Hampstead, a London borough which went forward rapidly and successfully with its shelter programme when it was first called upon by the Government to do so. Hampstead people now have plenty of visual evidence from one or two neighbouring boroughs further out, which I shall not name, that the shelter work there was not speeded up until the 100 per cent. grant became available. Do they ascribe that unfairness to the Minister? The House should realise that they ascribe it not to the Minister but to Parliament. The Minister acts in the name of Parliament, and the explanation given at council meetings everywhere and in the local Press is that Parliament has taken this decision that the laggard shall be paid and the efficient shall be penalised. The Minister of Home

Security, who as we know has been questioned many times already on this subject, has I think made it reasonably clear by his answers that he sympathises with the view which has been put forward by his questioners, and which appears to me to be almost the unanimous view of the back bench Members of this House, and probably many others in the Government also. He sympathises with this view, without a doubt. In answer to one Question he said:
I fully appreciate the point of my hon. Friend and would not argue as to its merits" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1940; col. 330, Vol. 367.]
Does that not show that the Minister himself sees the justice of what we are claiming, but does not feel strong enough to stand up to the Treasury in the matter? I have sympathy with the hon. Lady who is to reply to this Debate. In my view there ought to be here a representative of the Treasury. The Chancellor ought to be here. This is a Treasury decision; fundamentally it is not a Ministry of Home Security decision. The Treasury hides behind the Minister of Home Security, and, so far as local authorities and the public are concerned, the Minister hides behind Parliament, and yet here we are in the House, all of us agreeing that we are not prepared to support the Minister in his decision.
This matter goes far. We in this House should carefully see to it that we maintain the confidence of local authorities in the financial arrangements made for them —I must even say, imposed upon them—by Parliament; that is, by us. That confidence has recently waned somewhat. I am delighted that the House should be showing its active interest, because we shall hear much more of these things. The House may not realise that, at this moment, local authorities are having to argue with the Ministry on such a trivial point as this, that when a Civil Defence authority hires vehicles for Civil Defence purposes they qualify for 100 per cent. grant, but though the Ministry say that it is more desirable to purchase the vehicles, if the vehicles are purchased the local authorities find that they qualify for only a 60 per cent. grant. That kind of reasoning is extremely hard for borough treasurers, town clerks and members of local authorities to understand. It gives them the impression that we in this House are not treating them fairly, and are not


seeing that this matter of financial administration is being clearly and intelligently handled at the centre. The other day I saw that a responsible person in local government, referring to the A.R.P. grant system, quoted Shakespeare:—
Here is such patchery, such juggling and such knavery
Hon. Members may laugh, but it is not a matter for laughter in the council chamber. I hope that the House will show that it is unanimous to-day in its belief that the Government's administrative action has been wrong.

Mr. Hubert Beaumont: I have been requested by the three boroughs in my constituency to enter a protest against the arbitrary decision taken on this matter, and a plea for its reconsideration. My hon. Friend quoted a certain extract from a speech made by the Home Secretary on some previous occasion. I am one of those who do not think that the Home Secretary has departed from the position he then maintained, but rather that he has been faced with a difficulty which up to the present he has not been able to overcome. The difficulty seems to be that of persuading the Treasury to act fairly to local authorities, and it may therefore well be that the Home Secretary himself, and the hon. Lady who is to reply, will welcome the most trenchant criticism of this circular. Consequently there may be a little softening, and, as a result, the local authorities may be reimbursed for expenses incurred prior to 19th October, 1940.
I submit that this circular discriminates in favour of laggard authorities, and that it definitely penalises the patriotic, progressive and public-spirited authorities. Those who have got on with the work are punished and impoverished, and the circular definitely put a premium upon incompetence and delay. The principle, if there be a principle, underlying this circular is one that will act as a great deterrent to local authorities in the future. It is certain that it will stultify effort, and the Home Office or the Ministry of Home Security may be extremely sorry in the future that they have made a decision of this character. For many months a slogan has been pressed upon us: posters on walls all over the country have enjoined upon the populace to "go to

it" I am wondering whether local authorities, when they receive instructions or requests from the Ministry of Home Security in the future will interpret "Go to it" as "Wait for it"—because if they "Wait for it," they may get the whole of the expenses paid, while if they "Go to it" they may be involving themselves In additional expenditure. If local authorities believe that they will get better terms if they are dilatory and unresponsive, it may so happen that their hesitancy, indecision and inaction will definitely imperil the life of the nation and the national effort. We need to do everything we can to encourage local authorities to carry out the duties and obligations imposed upon them, and we do not want to see them deterred by the consideration that if they wait a little longer they may get better terms.
It is very true, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, that protests have come from all over the country. He has spoken on behalf of the great municipal authorities, but this also applies, maybe in a lesser degree, to the smaller local authorities—the small boroughs and urban district councils,. which have also been patriotic and are being penalised. Local authorities may be placed in a position in which their ratepayers will object to extra burdens being put upon them because their authorities take action. We have been told by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in an answer to a Parliamentary Question, that it is not practicable to avoid inequalities when the rates of grant are altered. I submit that if there is to be any inequality or imposition it should not fall upon those authorities which did the work, but upon the sluggards, the incompetents and the hesitants. As it is now, the public-spirited, enterprising and realistic authorities are being penalised.
In my constituency I have three authorities, and may I just quote the case of one, namely Morley, a very enterprising and public-spirited authority, a small borough whose penny rate works out at £645. Because of their activity and enterprise, they are being compelled to pay a penny rate for additional shelters, and they are having to pay loan charges for providing shelters for schools. For the next 12 years they will have to pay a 1¼d. rate, yet if they had waited, if they


had not considered the well-being, health and care of the children, they would now be able to get the whole cost of the school shelters, provided they were open to the public after school hours. It is tragic that in these days we should embarrass local authorities in the effective carrying out of their duties.
One could quote many more figures, but there is a number of Members of the House who wish to speak. We do not want local authorities to think that they are not going to be dealt with fairly and squarely. We do not want local authorities to feel that Government Departments will not play the game with them. We believe in the patriotic spirit of our local authorities, and we want to encourage them in every possible way to carry out the wishes of Parliament. Surely the first thing we have to do now is to restore the trust of the local authorities in the administration of the Home Office? Perhaps, so far as the Home Secretary and the hon. Lady who is to reply are concerned, we are pushing at an open door. I believe that, if they had been on this side of the House, they would have been emphasising even more strongly the points that are being made.
Therefore, if the hon. Lady has to say that there can be no alteration of this decision, it may be possible, as a result of the emphasis that has been laid upon the point in this House, and of the fact that hon. Members of all parties from all parts of the country are strong in their protest against this matter, that it may be reconsidered. If it is a question of Treasury opposition, I am certain that this House can prove the truth of the axiom that the whole is greater than the part, and can insist on the Treasury making restitution to those authorities which have carried out the wishes of Parliament. We are not opposed to a grant of 100 per cent. In fact, we support it, and we want the 100 per cent. grant to be given to all the authorities which have done their job. All we are asking is that additional expense incurred by local authorities shall be met out of this grant. It is, I submit, an act of common justice and common sense. It is dangerous for local authorities to suffer from any grievance, and I believe that restitution to the authorities of the amount they have expended will revive their trust in the national administration,

and will ensure the greatest measure of co-operation in the days that are to come.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I think the case made out by my hon. and gallant Friend who raised this matter to-day was really made for him some time ago by the Home Secretary, and I am only sorry that the Home Secretary's other pre-occupations have kept him away from the House to-day, with the result that he has had to leave his charming understudy to hold the fort. She will no doubt make an adequate reply to the criticisms we have heard, although I venture to think that her heart will not really be in it, because no more strenuous advocate of fairness to local authorities exists in this House than the hon. Lady herself. It is a little hard, therefore, that it should fall to her lot to have to defend the indefensible.
I think one of the most trenchant criticisms has been that of the hon. Member who sits beside me. Unless this injustice is corrected, it will inevitably lead to local authorities in future deciding that they had better wait and see whether something better will turn up before embarking on a constructional policy. In my own constituency all the boroughs have done their best since the beginning of the war—and, indeed, since before the war—to make proper provisions. For having done so, they have been penalised —they have been doubly penalised, because originally, before France collapsed, it was reasonable to suppose that the area would not prove particularly vulnerable, but the collapse of France led to what would otherwise have been a more or less neutral area becoming one of the most dangerous areas outside London itself. Having faced up to that, before the date of the circular, the boroughs in my constituency took what steps they could to secure adequate shelters. One provided shelters for 10,000 people. If they had waited, and had only now begun to embark on a policy of adequate shelters, they would have been given an 100 per cent. grant.
I do not think anyone who has listened to to-day's speeches would doubt that on a vote the decision would be overwhelmingly in favour of this House asserting itself against a most unjust Treasury decision. I suggest to the hon. Lady that,


even now, it might be possible to reconsider the matter. I cannot believe that it is right to put a premium upon laziness and incompetence. Boroughs which have not faced up to their responsibilities are to be treated better than those which have done their best to look after the people living within their domains. I cannot see any inducement for any local authority to make provision for its inhabitants when it knows that if it does it will probably be penalised for its enterprise. The Home Secretary himself has been the most ardent and convincing advocate of what has been urged on both sides of the House to-day. If there is any way in which it is possible for the obvious will of this House to prevail, I hope and believe that the hon. Lady will be found only too anxious to submit to her chief that it would be better for a stand to be made against this Treasury decision and an effort made to reverse it, because a reversal of that decision is what the House of Commons demands.

Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. In view of the very great importance of this subject and the principle involved, is it not possible for us to have the Home Secretary here?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): Perhaps I might explain that the Home Secretary is in the North of England on a long tour of Civil Defence organisations, which had been fixed up some time before this Debate was arranged. The Home Secretary told the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) on a previous occasion that he could not be present, because he would be away then also.

Major Milner: In fairness, I should say that the right hon. Gentleman told me that he could not be present at any time. I was prepared to suit his convenience when raising this matter, but the right hon. Gentleman declined to attend, and asked the hon. Lady to represent him.

Miss Wilkinson: In fairness to my right hon. Friend, I should say that when this discussion was originally fixed, it was arranged that the hon. and gallant Member should raise it on an Adjournment Debate at the end of the day. My right

hon. Friend said that he had stated in the House of Commons all that he could say on the matter. On the date in question he could not attend, but he said that in any case he had said all that he had to say. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that this Debate was fixed to suit neither his convenience nor mine, but to suit the arrangements of the House.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Further to that point of Order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not a point of Order at all. We had better get on with the Debate.

Mr. Isaacs: I do not wish to say anything on the principle involved, but there is particular hardship so far as Southwark is concerned. In Southwark, we incurred an expenditure of £300,000 in providing shelters. We agitated for some time for permission to provide a deep shelter by converting two disused railway tunnels. Finally, we were given permission to put that work in hand. If that permission had been delayed a fortnight longer we should have got this grant. As it was, we did not get it, and out of that £300,000 the borough has to meet a charge of £75,000, which involves 1s. 6d. on the rates. This one shelter results in an additional charge on us of about £26,500, so that that alone costs the ratepayers an extra 6d. on the rates. The important point is that, whatever may be the case in other boroughs—and I dare say there are a number which are in the same position—this particular shelter is more a general public shelter than a Borough of Southwark shelter. It runs along the main road from London Bridge to Little Dorrit's Church—St. George's Church. In the last few months last year, when we had so many daylight raids, it was crowded every time a warning sounded with hundreds of people from all parts of London. The Southern Railway were emptying thousands of passengers from their trains in the early mornings and late evenings, and when the warnings were given the people flocked down into that tube.
There is another point about it. Although there is some question whether we might have delayed the building of this shelter a bit longer, and thereby saved money, if we had known about it—a lot of boroughs would have done that—there is no doubt that the existence of that deep shelter saved thousands of lives in those


weeks when there were such heavy raids over London, and particularly over Southwark. When I say thousands, I mean thousands. It is possible for 8,000 to 9,000 people to sleep down there. There is ample evidence that people were in that shelter when their homes were wrecked, and that they would have been killed or injured if they had been in the streets. It is life-saving. It is all part of the war effort, and in addition to all the burdens which the boroughs have to bear, and we hope that the Ministry will reconsider this matter. I add my plea to that of others that pressure should be brought to bear on the Treasury that the nation as a whole should help to meet the burden, so as not to make it so heavy for other boroughs that were public-spirited and got on with their job.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I want shortly to support a great deal of what has been said from all quarters of this House on this subject. On the question whether the original grant should have been 60 per cent. or 100 per cent. there may legitimately be a difference of opinion, but I do not think that there is anybody in any quarter of the House, and I include the Treasury Bench, who is going to say that the decision which we are criticising this afternoon is a just decision. The serious aspect of the question seems to me to be this, that, if this decision is adhered to without change, the Government are deliberately doing something which does not purport to be just. I do not think that the unanimity of this view, as hitherto expressed, will be broken when the hon. Lady comes to reply, because so far, when the question has been raised in this House, the reply of the Government has been that they say nothing on the merits. The Government say nothing on the subject of the merits, because in the particular action that they have taken there are no merits.
The decision has been referred to as a Treasury decision, but it is not for any private Member to try to divide an indivisible Government and to say what is a Ministry of Home Security, and what is a Treasury decision. But whichever Department has made this decision, it is, in my respectful submission, most shortsighted. I would associate myself most strongly with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). I hope that whichever

Department it is that wishes to maintain the decision will consider what is likely to be the result in the future. Assume that the Government of the day wish a local authority to indulge in some expenditure in the national interest. The local authority, perhaps, for some reason or other is not enthusiastic about complying. The Government press it and offer a contribution. It seems to me that the reluctant local authority will simply laugh at the Government. It will say, "Really, these arguments are not good enough. You know perfectly well that, if you are really keen about it, you will give way and give 100 per cent. as you did in the case of the shelters." This is as shortsighted from the Treasury point of view as it is from the point of view of every other Department.
I will only say one more thing. I think all the speakers who have hitherto spoken have said that the right remedy is to increase the grant in all cases to 100 per cent. Perhaps it is, but I am prepared, at any rate, to suggest a possible alternative. I protest against the present decision on the ground of its admitted injustice. The Government must do one of two things. They can either agree to the plea that has been made from all quarters of the House this afternoon, to increase the 60 per cent. to 100 per cent., or they can take appropriate measures to put some financial disability in the future on those languid authorities which lagged behind until the 100 per cent. was granted. It seems to me that that may not be impossible through the machinery of the block grant. By one method or another the Government must abandon their present position, in which, on the one hand, they do not pretend that the decision is just, but, on the other, propose to maintain it. If the decision must be altered there are two possible ways of altering it, either by making up the grant in all cases to 100 per cent. or by penalising in some way, through the machinery of the block grant or otherwise, any local authorities which waited to do their duty until they were bribed.

Mr. Douglas: In the whole of this matter of Civil Defence the local authorities have been performing a national task. They have been part of the national war effort. They have been acting as the agents of the Government in doing something which the Government


could not otherwise have formed an organisation to do, or, if they had been compelled to form a separate organisation, it would have been more inefficient and far more costly than having it done through the existing agency of the local authorities. We have put forward the case time after time to the Government that this expenditure ought to carry grant at the rate of 100 per cent. We have put forward in addition numerous claims for financial adjustment within the framework of the scheme which the Government have operated, claims which have not been disputed in principle but which have been outstanding for months and years past without any satisfaction being given to the local authorities. They acquiesced, although they did not approve of the general principle of a percentage grant for various services, and they might have continued to acquiesce in it so long as it operated equally between all local authorities. But when the new principle was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman of making the 100 per cent. grant in respect of shelters as from a certain date and not making it retrospective, then the equality as between one local authority and another was broken. I am not going to make any aspersions upon any local authority nor to say that the delay in some cases has been wilful or culpable. I am not making any point of that kind at all. I am merely making the point that there is a discrimination between one local authority and another determined by a purely arbitrary date.
I understand what the arguments are in general against making legislation, and especially financial legislation, retrospective. The argument is that by doing so you do not necessarily secure any justice or equality. If, for instance, you raise the rate of old age pensions, you cannot make it retrospective, because some of those who would have been affected by it would be dead and could not benefit by it, and there could, therefore, never be any finality or justice about making it retrospective. But here we have a case of an entirely different character. This job has been in one compartment for a very short period of years. The accounts are available. The Home Office and the Ministry of Home Security know as well as local authorities what amount of money is involved in it. There is nothing which

cannot be ascertained. There is no difficulty in making it retrospective from the beginning. The only objection which can be made is that the Government do not want to provide the amount of money which is necessary in order to do it. That is an argument, which, I hope, the hon. Lady is not going to use to-day.
A suggestion has been made that the Treasury should carry out the principle of deferment which has been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, and that if it is not able to provide the money to-day, it should give the credit to the local authorities which would be valuable to them in the future. It is a suggestion which may help, at any rate, to bridge the difficulty, as the difficulty is a purely financial one, and I ask the hon. Lady to remember that the local authorities have borne a very large burden of expenditure for which they get no grant whatsoever. They are contributing the services of administration in carrying out this scheme, and where they are using their permanent officers to do it they get no Government grant in respect of it. This is not negligible. I am a member of two local authorities' Civil Defence committees and chairman of their finance committees. In one case, out of the total expenditure one-third is for Civil Defence purposes and in the other case, out of the total expenditure of the local authority, one-half is for Civil Defence purposes. Thus one-half of the energy and organisation of that local authority is, in effect, being used for purposes of national defence, and I do ask that the hon. Lady, if she is not able to say "Yes" to the plea which I think is unanimous in this House, will not say "No." I hope this point will be kept open, so that the Home Secretary and the members of the Government who are responsible for this decision can appreciate the force of the opinion which there is behind this demand for justice as between one local authority and another.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: I would no have intervened in this Debate had it not been that I see the establishment of a very dangerous principle in the consequences of the Government's decision—a principle which is calculated to undermine the whole relationship between Government Departments and local authorities. When we passed the Air-Raid Precautions Act I was opposed to


local authorities making any contribution at all to A.R.P. and other essential services. What is standing between us today? The Air-Raid Precautions Act provides that local authorities shall make a grant of 60 to 75 per cent., and in addition it provides that if the local rate exceeds one penny, the local authority has, for that amount in excess of a penny rate, further assistance to the extent of 80 to 85 per cent. The House has been quite satisfied with these conditions. The margin is not a very serious one, but the principle underlying this Government decision is vital, and for that alone I take my part in protesting against that decision.
But I have another reason for intervening in this Debate. I have the honour to represent the county borough of Southampton, which has suffered somewhat severely as a result of enemy action. We have at that Box been complimented for our enterprise and initiative, and in this House Southampton has been put up as an example of what a progressive corporation has done under the Air-Raid Precautions Act. It has resulted in an expenditure of £219,000, and under block grants the Government contribute to that expenditure £46,500, leaving a balance of £172,500. This was expended before October, 1940, which means that all the Government propose to contribute to Southampton is the percentage under the block grant formula. What is the net result? It is that Southampton will have to find £63,885. Who are these local authorities who have not been using their initiative and have not proceeded to provide shelters for their communities? I think we should know who they are. Why should it have been necessary to offer this bribe to people who were not prepared to get on with the Job? We must look this matter squarely in the face. Had it not been that Southampton had been enterprising, being one of the early towns which were "blitzed," it is very likely that the number of casualties would have been very considerably greater than they already have been. Is the hon. Lady to put forward to-day a statement that can justify the Government decision to penalise my constituency and others in this way? It is incredible; it is not English, and I appeal to the hon. Lady, whatever her brief may be, to face the facts and let us have an honest decision

and not one which is meant to please either the Home Secretary or the Treasury.
The Treasury is at fault, and it is for this House to bring the matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. The principle adopted is very serious, and if the Government hope to have the confidence and good will of local authorities, they must act different from the way in which they are acting at the present time. Not only that; my constituency will suffer when this war is over. It is true that because we have been "blitzed" we are receiving financial assistance from the Treasury, but at some time that will be withdrawn, and the town will be left with the whole responsibility of loans which have had to be raised to meet this obligation. Therefore, a constituency which has done its duty is again penalised for the second time when the Treasury withdraws its temporary financial assistance. I sincerely hope that this matter will be dealt with in a realistic way and not merely as a piece of Departmental strategy.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I cannot disguise my delight that at least a voice from Scotland is to be raised in this Debate which, the hon. Lady knows, affects us very considerably indeed. I will not grow indignant as the previous speaker did, but rather try to follow the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) when he was placing this case before the Lord President of the Council, who was then Home Secretary, in the hope that he will tell the Prime Minister the views of the House and advise him that he should adopt what most Members desire. I raised on a previous occasion the question of the absence of the Home Secretary from this Debate. It is an absence which I think is very regrettable, because I have never known my right hon. Friend suffer from cold feet. Indeed, I have in my hectic moments called him a diplomat of the first order, and I am afraid that diplomacy has won the day so far as his attendance in the House is concerned with this Debate. I am afraid that his diplomacy has won the day as far as attendance at the House is concerned.
It is also rather strange that we should have here the President of the Board of


Education, because when, in 1937, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary moved an Amendment to the effect that the House, while conscious of the regrettable necessity for taking measures to protect life and property in the event of air raids, could not assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which did not provide for the cost involved being made a national charge, one of his most ardent supporters in the Debate was my hon. Friend who is to-day Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, and who has not seen fit to grace the Front Bench opposite with his presence. The Minister who moved that Amendment sends his Parliamentary Secretary to speak on his behalf, and the hon. Member, now a Parliamentary Secretary, who supported the Amendment has his Minister here to speak for him. I do not know whether to condemn the Home Secretary for his tyranny, or compliment the President of the Board of Education on his understanding.
This is a very serious question. When I was sitting in the committee which dealt with fire-brigade orders and Air Raid Precautions plans, I heard the representations of local councils. There were joint representations by the nation's local councils, when the Scottish local councils combined under the joint leadership of the Lord Provost of Glasgow and the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary to try to impress upon the Home Secretary of that time the justice of their case. I know of local authorities who thought they were comparatively safe from air raids and who, in their own narrow little minds, thought that they could afford to be selfish and not take the necessary steps in the nation's interests. Those bigoted councils were seriously condemned by every right-minded man and woman, who asked that they should undertake fully their duties with regard to air-raid precautions. If a soldier refuses to do his duty, he is punished, and rightly so. If a shopkeeper, taking advantage of the war, tries to sell goods at an excessive price, he is severely punished by the Government. Anyone who takes advantage of the war situation in this way has been condemned by the Prime Minister and by every Cabinet Minister, and by almost every Member of the House. Why

should we allow local councils which neglected their duties, and which, because they neglected them, forced the Government to make a 100 per cent. grant, this extra pocket money? The Scriptures have been quoted. Certainly, the fatted calf was killed for the prodigal son, but the Home Office are not only killing the fatted calf for the prodigal son, but are giving him pocket money out of the pockets of those who stood by the household in its period of distress.
The Government are doing something which affects every ratepayer. They are asking the common men and women, the small businesses that contribute to the rates, to bear the burden in order that 100 per cent. may be paid to those authorities which failed in their duty. The Government say to these people, "You stood by your country, you have done your part, and now, after your work has been practically completed and after the expenses have been practically met, at any rate for years, you will see that those who are now going to cost us a lot of money will get preferential treatment." Go into the Army, the Navy or the Air Force and tell the soldiers, sailors or airmen that the man who slacks will receive the decoration; go into public life and tell the shopkeeper who commits a felony that he will be rewarded more than the shopkeeper who is honest—do those things, and you will be acting in strict line with what the Home Office have undertaken to-day. I say that the position is absolutely ridiculous.
I have spoken in this Debate not on behalf of Scotland, nor concerning Scottish administration, because I know that neither the Home Secretary nor his Parliamentary Secretaries are sufficiently qualified or knowledgeable with regard to Scottish administration to take up my points; but in a general sense Scotland is affected. Some of our local authorities have done their part, whereas in other cases the Provost or Lord Provost went strutting about assuring people that this or that was being done when it was not. And the hon. Lady and the Lord President of the Council, in his replies to me in the past, knew that it was not being done. There were in Scotland certain individuals who went about prating and crowing and having "puff" paragraphs in the Press saying that this or that was being done, when it was not being done. Those men


were more of a menace to the country than many of the conscientious objectors whom they have been so ardently following up. Those people ought not to be allowed to get away with it. It must be very clear to the hon. Lady and to the Lord President of the Council, who I believe is watching the Debate for the Government, that the majority of the House, which is a pretty representative gathering to-day, is certainly in favour of fair play to those local authorities which carried out their duties in the past under very great difficulties. Unless those local authorities receive fair play and fair treatment, there will be a feeling of antagonism and disgruntlement which it will be very difficult to ease in future, and which will make it very difficult to get good working plans for the future.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: In view of what the hon. Member for Mary-hill (Mr. Davidson) has said, I had better mention that I speak not as an ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, but because I was asked to do so by the Provost of my constituency in Kilmarnock. We are suffering in just the same way in Scotland as in England, but there is one particular point that I want to put to the hon. Lady. I think my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will agree that shelters are a novel service. There was no precedent. It was difficult to decide how the percentage should run and there was a great deal of coming and going about it in the beginning. On the question of shelters for schools, there was very great difference of opinion, and my right hon. Friend had to receive long deputations over many months on that question. Whatever the feeling at the beginning may have been, whatever difficulties there may have been as to whether it was mostly local or mostly national, I feel there is now no dispute. All the old arguments about mutual reception areas and evacuation areas have pretty well ceased to have much meaning. The inside and outside of shelters are now under the Ministry of Home Security, as I understand it. The administration of special offices is under the Region. Therefore, to all intents and purposes this has become no longer a local service, as has been made clear by the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs). This has become a national and a regional problem. The local side has ceased to have the

meaning that it had in the beginning. That strengthens the argument very much for the 100 per cent. Could the hon. Lady give us some idea which are the authorities that have lagged behind? Is there any other argument that is going to be produced—we know so well how, if she had been there, she would have joined in this demonstration—besides the perfectly good argument that we must get on with the job and that money does not matter? If there is any other, everyone would like to hear it.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): I assure the House that this Debate will be read with the greatest care by my right hon. Friend. He is away in the North, and in any case he has already said to the House all that he has at present to say on the matter and, if he had been here, he could not but reiterate what he has said before. I want to make that quite clear, because anyone who knows him knows that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that a man of his fighting qualities is hiding behind my inadequate skirts.

Mr. Lathan: Are we to take it that any further argument is unavailing and that the last word has been said on the question?

Miss Wilkinson: If the hon. Member will wait until the end of the Debate, he can make up his own mind. I have noticed the moral indignation that hon. Members have put into the Debate. Anyone listening to it would imagine that my right hon. Friend had been engaged in placing even more grievous burdens on those who have borne the heat and burden of the day. In justice to him, I think the House must agree that in this question of the 100 per cent., he has performed a perfect miracle of political consistency. He has stood on that side of the House and has led deputations to the President for 100 per cent. grant to local authorities for shelters, and within three weeks of taking office he managed with great difficulty, in the very difficult circumstances in which we are all placed, to carry out his promise and get 100 per cent. for domestic shelter grants. I know that gratitude is not a quality of politicians, except on the basis of a lively anticipation of favours to come, but I really think someone might at least have said "Thank you" for what my right hon. Friend has already done. Therefore


the only point at issue between us is the question of retrospective payment. Anyone listening to the Debate would assume that there is no case on the other side at all, and that the issue is between vice and virtue, between laziness and industry.
I must thank the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) for at least giving us the opportunity of putting the other side of the case, because I think there is a case. It is a case that should be heard. Almost everyone has stated the lowest case, and has talked about the 60 per cent. grant. I would remind the House that the grants range between 60 and 85 per cent. May I ask Members not to speak of this shelter question as though it were a private affair of the Government? After listening to the Debate, one would assume that this war was a private concern of the British Government, and that people were pretty reluctant to provide shelters for themselves. The suggestion that if local authorities such as Southampton, Liverpool and other target areas, had known that at some future date they would have received a 100 per cent. grant and therefore would not have provided shelters when they did, is really absurd. We are all in this war together, and the question is to provide shelters as quickly as we can, and as widely spread as we can. This has to be done under very difficult and improvised conditions.
I would remind the House that the cost of materials for domestic shelters has been reimbursed all along. The materials for Anderson shelters were provided by the Government, and the cost of the material for domestic shelters which were not provided directly was also reimbursed at 100 per cent. The famous Circular of 1st October announced that in future the cost of material used in the equipment of public shelters, as well as domestic shelters, would be reimbursed in full. The public shelters were put on the same basis as domestic shelters. The reason for that was that we were just entering upon the "Blitz," and the distinction between public and domestic shelters had become rather obscured. Shelters were not being used for day raids but at night. Thus they served the function of domestic shelters, for which 100 per cent. had already been paid.
There were other confusions and delays which occurred, arising out of the difference between county councils and district councils. County councils were responsible for public shelters and were receiving grants on that basis only, whereas district councils had delegated to them responsibility for domestic shelters and were receiving 100 per cent. And so. even before Circular 262 was sent out, there was some difficulty. The Circular announced that in future, as from 19th October, all expenditure on the construction and equipment of shelters—and I want to underline this, because it means labour costs as well as material—would be reimbursed 100 per cent., provided that reasonable economy was practised. There were two or three reasons for this. One of the reasons, as the hon. Member for North Southwark (Mr. Isaacs) has pointed out, was that the distinction between areas was being lost, and that people were going from one area to another to take shelter. It was unreasonable in that case that one local authority should have to pay for sheltering ratepayers of another local authority. That point had not been previously considered. Before the "Blitz" came the assumption was that local authorities would provide shelter for their own areas. Our policy and financial arrangements were based on that assumption. I must underline the fact that in a war like this, when strategy and conditions are rapidly changing from week to week, it is not possible to assume that the shelter policy laid down before the war started would remain the same, and that we should go on assuming nothing would ever change.
We had to have flexibility and to be able to alter our plans accordingly. That was impossible unless you were paying the money to do it. We had to do a lot of things, such as the taking-over of basements and all kinds of public shelters and re-equipping them. All this could not be done by the local authorities, and it had to be done at the centre. It was not just a case of saying to a certain authority, "You lazy things, why have you not done this?" It was a case of suddenly finding areas, for reasons we need not go into, having hundreds of bombs when other areas three miles away were not being affected. You had to go into the first area and make vast provisions for shelter. This House was


screaming for shelters and asking why the work was not being done. This scheme had to be undertaken very quickly. It was impossible to put the cost on the rates of the local authorities, and therefore we had to say, "We will pay 100 per cent. all round" We recognise that the decision not to reimburse retrospectively has led to some inequalities. But the question is not quite so clear cut as hon. Members seem to think. For instance, in Sheffield and other parts—I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds need talk about the amount for his constituency—which knew they would be a target, they went ahead. They would have done that without receiving anything from the Government. They have had considerable help all along, and have had 100 per cent. for materials for domestic shelters. It is therefore only a question of 100 per cent. for labour.
I would remind hon. Members that there were other authorities which were discouraged from putting up shelters as well as those which were encouraged. Why is that? It is because in this little Island, with all the difficulties of sea warfare and the rest of it, there is not an unlimited amount of material. We had to deal with the dormitory problem, bunks, lighting and heating, and all those things, and those authorities which had previously spent the money have now had the money from the Government for these extra amenities. Therefore the work could not be spread equally all over the country, and we had to deal with certain special areas and give them more. I know that it is not altogether realised what has been done. At a time when there was difficulty in getting sufficient bunks, an indignant lady, who was not getting all the bunks she needed, said impatiently, "Why do not you order them from Harrods?" Well, you just cannot ring up a store and order as many bunks as you want. These things have to be planned out. Those authorities which had done the most for themselves were rewarded by the Government on a 100 per cent. basis.

Major Milner: Can you give us an instance or two?

Miss Wilkinson: I could give the House the names of certain London boroughs. We need not particularise, because we all know which they are.

Mr. Douglas: So you are discriminating between London boroughs?

Miss Wilkinson: I did not think I should be jumped on and asked to produce figures. But I would point out that there are some boroughs in London which have had 400 bombs to the acre, and that there are other boroughs which have had only 1.3 bombs to the acre. Is it suggested that we should not discriminate between boroughs of that kind when you are in a jam like this? It is not as clean cut a question as it appears. We have to deal with the position as it is. There is not a Member of this House who if he was placed in our difficulty would not have done what is obviously a commonsense thing to do.

Major Milner: Give 100 per cent. all round.

Miss Wilkinson: I am beginning to think, with all due respect to the hon. and gallant Member, that trying to give 100 per cent. to local authorities is like trying to wash a white cat. When you have once started, you have to go on.

Sir A. Southby: At any rate, you cannot wash half a cat.

Miss Wilkinson: We have now to consider the future. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend the difficulties in certain highly-rated areas. I have pleaded and many have pleaded in this House for the areas which have had their rateable value severely hit. Hon. Members have spoken as though the payment of this retrospective amount of £9,000,000 spread over the whole country would solve the financial difficulties of local authorities. It is clear that nothing of the kind would happen and that no such amount as this would be adequate.
I ask hon. Members to be realistic. It is no use saying that you can win a war like this on the basis of bookkeeping transactions of the meticulous kind that have been put to us to-day. How can we, looking into the future, say what the financial position of local authorities will be at the end of the war? There are many of them now hopelessly bankrupt. I should imagine that there is no local authority either in this country or in Germany which is not practically in that position. The whole question of financial arrangements between the Government


and local authorities is infinitely bigger and more complicated than this small question of £9,000,000. There will obviously have to be at the appropriate time after the war a complete review of the whole question of local finance and its relation to the Government. [Interruption.] We may have to rebuild cities probably from the very ground, for before this war has finished we may, as the Prime Minister said, be fighting under the rubble of our big cities. We cannot bother about this and that little percentage. The whole thing may have to be in the melting-pot before we have finished. I really must ask hon. Members to take a realistic and big view of the situation. The 1937 Act provided that within three years of the passing of the Act an investigation should be made into the working of the financial provisions, with particular reference to the expenditure falling to be borne by local rates. With the agreement of the local authorities this investigation has been postponed. The question whether any changes due as a result of the investigation should be made retrospective will have to be discussed when the investigation takes place.
The whole question will have to be looked at in the light of the situation as it then is. It is not doing any good to anybody to foment the idea of injustice between local authorities and the Government. The Departments concerned in Civil Defence are entirely at the service of the local authorities, and neither money, service nor anything else is allowed to weigh in the balance. If a city is "blitzed," there are arrangements both at the region and the centre for giving aid at once to the local authorities. You cannot put the service that the Ministry of Home Security are performing for the "blitzed" areas on a basis of this or that percentage.

Major Milner: Why not deal with the local authorities generously in all respects?

Miss Wilkinson: This £9,000,000 would be a tiny thing compared with the whole work that has to be done. I do want to remove this sense of injustice. This is an extraordinarily big question, and a lot of difficulty can be created about it between local authorities and the Government if you go on fussing about this

retrospective payment of a small amount when what we want to do is to put the whole thing on a proper basis as soon as we are able to do it. If it is to be done on the narrowest basis of justice, there is nothing more to be said, but I have tried to point out that difficult issues are involved and that the biggest issue of all is that the local authorities and the Government shall pull together in this matter. Nobody can do more than Members of this House to help in that direction, and nobody can do more to foster a sense of injustice about something which is largely imaginary because of the general financial situation. I ask hon. Members to help the local authorities and the Government to pull together in this difficult situation.

PLAYING FIELDS (PLOUGHING-UP).

Major Sir Edward Cadogan: The subject I wish to raise is one which at first sight may appear of microscopic importance and an insignificant digression compared with much upon which we have been deliberating in recent weeks. If examined with the consideration which I invite the Minister of Agriculture to devote to it, I hope that it will assume larger dimensions in his estimation, because it is a matter which concerns the whole nation. In his scheme for the in-creased production of foodstuffs in wartime there are, I concede, some areas which it may be necessary to sacrifice and which were monopolised in happier days for the purposes of recreation. I am asking for an assurance from the Minister that no such areas will be needlessly or capriciously converted to arable. I would make two observations by way of preface to my appeal. I do not wish to be misinterpreted. Like everyone with a grain of common sense, I realise that our victory in the war must be our first war aim and that for this achievement every conceivable sacrifice, at whatever cost, will be necessary. I will take no exception, therefore, to whatever course the Minister of Agriculture tells me is inevitable. The time may come—I hope and believe it will not—when every nook and cranny in the country will have to be ploughed up to provide nourishment for man and beast. That time is not yet, however, and until the occasion arises for


more drastic action I trust the Minister will still have regard to preserving some well-laid turf for recreation.
My second preliminary observation is that I am not bringing this matter up in any critical spirit. On the contrary, I should like to make my acknowledgments to the Minister and his assistants for being most conciliatory in meeting representations made to them. Some proposals to cultivate certain ground have been abandoned at his instance. But evidence is accumulating that in some parts of the country, owing to the zeal of the county war agricultural committees, to whose work I should like to pay high tribute, increasing pressure is being brought to bear upon local authorities and on trustees who own playing fields to devote them to cultivation, and this has led to some needless action having been taken with that end in view. Let me give the House an example of how land normally used for recreation has been needlessly sacrificed. In the county of Durham it was proposed to plough up a recreation ground while a much larger area of equally suitable land in the immediate neighbourhood was overlooked, although the owner was perfectly willing to allow it to be taken over for cultivation. I am afraid that is not an isolated instance.
There are various considerations which I would ask the Minister to take into account when we are told we should not concern ourselves with recreation during war-time. The first is the immense expenditure already laid out in the provision of playing fields in this country. It may interest the House to learn that in the last 12 years no less than £4,150,000 has been spent by Government, by trusts and by private benefactors upon new recreation grounds, and it must be remembered that on the average it costs as much to level, drain and equip sites for playing fields as to purchase the land. A consequential consideration is that it will be an immensely costly process to revert these recreation grounds, if ploughed up, to suitable turf. This is a most important consideration. There is the length of time it will take to effect this restoration. I own some grazing land which has recently been ploughed up. I asked how long it would take to restore those meadows, and I was told that even to rough grazing it would take three years. It would take even longer, I presume, to

restore arable to fine, level turf suitable for team games. But that is not the whole story. In all probability recreation grounds which have been appropriated for agricultural purposes during the war will not be available to their original owners for a year or two afterwards. When we are told we must postpone any concern for recreation to the end of the war, I can only reply that we shall have to wait much longer than that.
Another consideration should not be ignored. There are large masses of troops, and there doubtless will be throughout the war, in training in this country. I speak from experience when I say that there is no better parade ground than a playing field. Earlier in the war I was posted to a training centre which was so congested with recruits that sometimes we were compelled to carry out drill, musketry and other military exercises in the widest streets we could find. Anyone who has tried that expedient knows how futile it is. Certainly large recreation grounds make admirable parade grounds. The use of the recreation ground by the troops is positively beneficial. Everyone knows that walking on it improves rather than injures turf. For some mysterious reason, while the tramp of martial feet does no harm to grass, it is injurious to weeds, and so by using recreation grounds for the training of soldiers you have one of those rare processes which effect reciprocal benefits. Let us take full advantage of this phenomenon, and do not let us get rid of the best parade grounds before we need. And why should the troops only parade and drill on these recreation grounds? Why should they not play on them too? On a recent Saturday I devoted an hour or two to watching a team of my constituents play a football match with Bolton Wanderers. Incidentally, it was played on turf which would have made the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture water. Every member of that team was either a soldier or an airman or a munition worker, and I am sure they were all better soldiers, better airmen and better munition workers for that game of football.
Last, but not least, youth must be served in the matter of recreation: This is of paramount importance at any time, but it is far more important during this war. That is the root cause of that vast, costly but very successful scheme of


evacuation for which the Government have made themselves responsible. Never has youth been called upon to bear so great a strain. It is all-important that the health of youth should be attended to, and surely I need not stress the point that recreation on playing fields is one of the essential parts of the attention we should give to this particular subject. One of the reasons why I trouble the House with this matter is that I entertain some misgiving that there is not sufficient collaboration between the two Ministries concerned, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food, and that any mistakes that may have been made are to be attributed to a discrepancy in policy between the two Ministries, and that recreation grounds then come between the hammer and the anvil. Further, although earlier in the war the attitude of the Government on this matter was, so far as I was concerned, unexceptionable, I fear there has been some change in policy. A year or so ago Lord Crewe, who was President of the London Playing Fields' Association, of which, incidentally, I am chairman—and that is the reason why I am raising this matter—wrote to the Ministry of Agriculture asking for information as to what was the position of recreation grounds in relation to this policy of the Government, and he received the following reply. I admit it is some time ago, and that a great deal has happened since it was sent. In effect it was this:
So far as general agreement for ploughing up of grassland is concerned, the interests of your Association are fully safeguarded, inasmuch as the power given for the cultivation, management or use of land with a view to increasing food production is limited to agricultural land, and that expression, as defined in the Defence Regulations, 1939, does not include land occupied or preserved mainly or exclusively for purposes of sport or recreation.
That, as I say, was sent some time ago, and since then the policy seems to have altered, to judge by a statement issued last month by the Ministry of Food, in which it is said:
Municipal land which served a useful purpose in peace-time for providing playing fields for the public may well be adapted to service on food grounds.
I should like to ask whether there has been any change of policy, and perhaps the Minister will vouchsafe a reply.
Before I conclude my appeal, I should like to make a brief reference to a subject which is closely related to this one. We have heard a great deal lately about a new world and a new order. It seems to me the whole matter needs to be brought into proper focus. This new world, if I am to judge by the great many circulars sent to me by the planners themselves in their more buoyant, or, shall I say, delirious moods, is going to be a pretty elaborate and costly affair. I do not believe the average British citizen asks for nearly as much as those planners seem to think, and certainly does not want many of the things which it is suggested will be provided within the new world—of course, at his own expense. The powers of resistance to any form of uplift are, in most of us, very highly developed. I thing the average citizen wants a decent home, a decent job and a wide expanse of first-rate English turf. There is no turf in the world like English turf, and that is one of the reasons why we are such a sporting race. It was that feeling which inspired a poem which has become exceedingly tiresome from its constant repetition, in which the poet describes England as a "green and pleasant land." Owing to the exigencies of war, our country is beginning to wear a brown and unpleasant appearance. All I ask, in conclusion, is that in fostering the lay-out of food production the Minister of Agriculture, if he has any control over the Ministry of Food, will leave as many playing fields as possible upon which, who knows, we may win further Waterloos.

Mr. Wakefield: I think the hon. and gallant Member for Bolton (Sir E. Cadogan) deserves the thanks of the House for raising this matter. I would like to support everything he has said, and to assure my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. and gallant Member when he said that there is nothing we wish to do to hinder the production of food, which is so necessary for victory. Every corner of this country will have to grow food of one kind or another. We all know the great and successful efforts that the right hon. Gentleman is making. We know the difficulties with which he is faced—the many thousands of acres taken up, whether for aerodromes or for other purposes, in making this Island a safer fortress. I hope he will not feel that we


are trying to hinder him in his most important work. The point I would stress is this: Will he see that his county agricultural committees use every possible piece of land for growing vegetables before digging up playing fields? There are still many gardens being used for flower growing. Cannot they be used for vegetables before playing-fields are dug up? There are many pieces of park land, not suitable for playing-fields, which could be used for food production. There are numerous odd corners of land which could be used for food production. I would quote a letter which I have received from a women's institute at a village in Hampshire:
In 1935 this village bought a piece of ground in commemoration of Silver Jubilee with money raised by public subscription and with a grant of £50 jointly from King George's jubilee Trust and the National Playing Fields Association, to be used as a children's playground The owner sold it at a very low price for this purpose. It was conveyed to the Lymington Borough Council free of cost to them. This council now proposes to dig it up and hire it out in allotments. This is strongly opposed by the village and subscribers or, the grounds that, this being a country district, there is very little demand for allotments, and also that there is plenty of other ground which could be used. The beach is now prohibited and there is barbed wire round the green, so the need for the playground is obvious. I, as one of the committee who bought the ground, will be very much obliged if you will advise me as to whether there is any means by which we can prevent the council carrying out the intention.
That is the sort of thing which is happening up and down the country. I hope my right hon. Friend will use his influence with the county committees to prevent an extension of this kind of thing. The extent to which the process of digging up playing fields for food production is spreading may be seen from these statistics. Recently 118 of the King George's playing fields were examined. It was found that nearly 30 per cent. of these fields are now being used, in whole or in part, for cultivation, and that rather less than 10 per cent. are being used for grazing, to which, of course, no exception is taken. The use put to these playing fields is shown by the fact that 78 of them are now used, or were being used until they were taken over for cultivation, by evacuee children in those places where, owing to evacuation, great crowding takes place and where you must have some form of open spaces for the

children; and 45 of them were being used for drill by military forces and the Home Guard in the manner described by the hon. and gallant Member for Bolton.
It seems, therefore, a real tragedy that this process of digging up these levelled grounds, which are so suitable for other purposes in the national war effort, should continue. The growing of food, of course, is vital for our existence, but it is also of the greatest importance that our munition workers, who are putting all they know into their work, should have an opportunity on the half-day in the week which they get free to try and revitalise themselves by playing a game, just as the hon. and gallant Member has described, in the open air on some of these playing fields. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will urge that these playing fields be not dug up but be used for grazing or for other vital war purposes, such as military training or for use by the children and so forth. I also hope that in taking this action, if he will do so, with the county agricultural committees, he will feel that we are in no way hurting that most vital and important work in which he is so diligently engaged, that of seeing to it that this country wins its way to victory by having an adequate food supply.

WAR AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES.

Mr. Granville: I desire to raise the question of the war agricultural committees, their methods of working and their powers. The hon. Gentleman who preceded me will, I hope, forgive me if I do not exactly follow his line of argument. I appreciate his point of view, but I gave specific notice that I wished to raise this particular aspect. I do not apologise for raising this question of the war agricultural committees, because it was recently demonstrated in a Debate in this House that this is one of the most vital questions, affecting probably the most important problem that we shall have to face in the coming months in the national war effort in relation to the Battle of the Atlantic.
I want to say at once that I am not opposed to the war agricultural committees, to their work and what they have to do. I recognise that they have an extremely difficult job, but I would suggest that the great powers that they do


possess should be used with common sense. In my view, there is no doubt that in many parts of the country, or at least in some districts, these war agricultural committees and the district committees need overhauling by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. In Suffolk alone—and I wish to raise this question because it does affect Suffolk and my own constituency—I understand that 80 tenancies have been terminated since the right hon. Gentleman took these powers. I agree that a bad farmer should be dispossessed. As was demonstrated in a Debate recently, the House of Commons is behind the right hon. Gentleman in a general desire to give powers to the agricultural committees, and to see that those powers are carried out to the full. But I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell the House, and through the House tell the agricultural community, what is a bad farmer. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us. Does it mean that he is a bad cultivator, or does it mean that he happens to be an unfortunate, struggling, small farmer, who has been the victim of an agricultural control system which has left 10 years of depression and a succession of agricultural Ministers and their policies round his neck? I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is the judge of whether a farmer is a bad cultivator or not.
I understand that the war agricultural committee officials have power to say what a particular field shall grow and how a farm shall be cultivated, and that they have the right to dispossess a farmer until three years after the war. What perhaps happens in some districts—I have certainly had information that it happens in my own constituency in Suffolk—is that it boils down to a question of agricultural opinion between an official and a farmer who, I submit, ought to know his farm, when very often not only he but his father and grandfather before him have cultivated it and know what each field will grow. If the right hon. Gentleman has these powers, I submit that it is not fair and reasonable to dispossess small farmers without a right of appeal. A local official may be turning out a man whom he considers to be a bad farmer within the meaning of the regulations, but, on the

other hand, that farmer may be a good cultivator. I know a number of these farmers; I know the sort of men they are. They have had years of depression to struggle through. It has been one long continual fight to keep their heads above water, many of them are now being pressed for the collection of tithe arrears from current revenue, they are mortgaged to the bank and to the merchants, and for years this type of farmer has lived and worked with a millstone of fear around his neck. You now suddenly come along and ask such an individual for increased food production, in the interests of the national war effort. I ask, as a simple, ordinary, elementary business proposition, how can that type of individual find the capital? How can he find the cash resources to meet his increased wages bill? How can he meet the extras demanded by the merchants for the purposes of credit if he cannot pay cash? How can he find the money for this extra outlay, to enable him to reach the output which the right hon. Gentleman wants to help the food production effort of the country? In addition, he may not be credit-worthy, and he may therefore feel that he is not justified in such circumstances in availing himself of the facilities which the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry give in the various forms of credit.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Mr. Granville: I will quote from an official of the National Farmers' Union, who said:
Farmers who have been forced by war agricultural committees to hand over their farms to others for the duration and three years to ensure maximum food production, will, when they resume possession, have to bear the cost of restoration, tithes and other charges. Many farmers may never be able to go back to their farms as they could not possibly meet the charges which will have mounted up.
Is this right or just? I suggest that these small, struggling farmers may be good cultivators and anxious to increase their food production. In a recent Debate, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the ploughing up of golf courses, the reclama-


tion of land and a policy of intensive cultivation, but the schemes and the programme which he outlined in that Debate require labour, equipment, machinery and time. It may be a policy for long-term realisation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)said that the 1940 harvest was quoted in a paper—I think it was the "Dairy Farmer"—as giving 1½ per cent. of the yield over 1939. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will get his food production from the various schemes which have been put forward by the Ministry, but I suggest that there is a vital need this year and now for an intensive and increased food production. No refutation has been made of the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman but I sincerely hope that it will mean that the schemes put into operation will result in an increased harvest and an increased yield this year.
I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. His best chance of getting an increase in food production this year for immediate purposes is by assisting the small farmers to take advantage of the various schemes introduced by him and his predecessor to enable them to intensify their production and increase the cultivation of the soil, which has already been ploughed over for a considerable number of years. The single test of all these schemes, and controls by local officials of the county war agricultural committees, is, shall we get an increased food production in this country to enable us to bridge the gap between our previous imports and the food production of our own farmers? The Minister should overhaul the committees. They were appointed when he had a great number of matters on his mind and it is up to him now to overhaul their personnel and working, and their instructions.
I appeal to him to remember that the small and struggling farmers are entitled to a fair deal when they are appealed to in time of war to help us out of our difficulties. They should have a right of appeal to enable them, these hard-working family farmers, to give their time and experience to assist our war effort. I ask the Minister to think out some method of giving these men financial assistance to enable them to carry on. They may not be creditworthy, but they may be good cultivators.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs referred last week to the great mistake made by Germany in the last war of forgetting the vital part played in war strategy by agriculture. I believe this is probably one of the most important problems that this country has to face in the coming months. We have had many Ministers of Agriculture, and a very great and heavy responsibility rests upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend. This country is made up of a mass of small farmers who want to play their patriotic part and to do their best. I appeal to my right hon. Friend not to rely upon steam-roller regulations or officialdom or red tape, but to give these farmers an opportunity to assist fully with the production of food, and in my view they will solve the problem of the Atlantic for you.

PLAYING FIELDS (PLOUGHING-UP).

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Sir E. Cadogan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) have raised questions regarding the cultivation of recreation grounds and playing fields, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton asked me if I would give an assurance that my powers would not be used needlessly and capriciously. To the best of my belief, my powers are not being used needlessly or capriciously. The problem falls into two main categories. First of all, there are the sports grounds and playing fields in provincial and rural areas, and, secondly, similar areas in the London district. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton asked me whether there had been any change in Government policy since Lord Crewe apparently received a letter. Judging by the date it must have been before I was appointed.

Sir E. Cadogan: Yes, it was.

Mr. Hudson: When I was appointed, I had not the necessary powers over parks, golf courses and playing fields. As I said in the Debate the other day, I have had a new Defence Regulation made altering that condition of affairs and giving me increased powers, and, therefore, there has been a change of policy to that extent. As far as sports grounds and playing fields in the provinces and rural areas are concerned, the county war agricultural committees now have powers to give directions as to the cultivation and


management or use of the land. I have instructed them that these directions should principally take the form of the grazing of the land by stock, or else of using the grass for hay or silage. In particular cases where portions of these playing fields or recreation grounds are on reasonably good agricultural land, and where these areas are not required for the present for the purposes of playing fields the committees are informed that directions for ploughing up portions of such land can properly be served. But in order to prevent any indiscriminate action on the part of the committees I have told them that they must not serve any directions in such cases without my express consent. Therefore, to that extent hon. Members can be sure that this policy is not being followed needlessly or capriciously.
As to playing-fields and recreation grounds in London, the question mainly is to satisfy the demand for allotments. As the number of inhabitants around London, especially children, has been enormously reduced, there are numbers of cases where playing fields and recreation grounds are not being fully used, and in some cases are not being used at all, owing to the evacuation of children and of businesses and their staffs. Therefore, it would be extremely wrong if I refused my consent for those playing fields to be made available for allotments, especially in areas where there is a great unsatisfied demand for allotments. Each case is treated strictly on its merits, and I can assure my hon. Friends that I will continue, as I hope I have done in the past, not to use these powers needlessly or capriciously. But if I get any particular complaint from Members such as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon will perhaps let me have, I will look into it.

Sir E. Cadogan: Will my right hon. Friend do so if I send him particulars of a case from County Durham?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, with great pleasure.

WAR AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES.

Now I turn to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville). He said that 80 tenancies had been terminated in Suffolk, and

asked me to define a bad farmer. Well, it is probably easier to put that question than to answer it, but I think I cannot do better than remind him of what was said by the man who was asked to define an elephant. He said that he could not define it, but he would recognise one when he saw one.

Mr. Granville: Suppose the elephant does not believe it?

Mr. Hudson: My hon. Friend asked whether the things we were doing were obtaining increased food production at this critical period of the war. Well, the purposes of the powers under the Defence Regulations, which I have delegated for the most part to the county war executive committees, are to increase the home production of food and that is the test to be applied both under the present system or under any alternative system. Would any alternative system be better than the present system? I do not think it would. The hon. Member, in talking about conditions in Suffolk, said it was wrong that the question of whether or not a farmer was farming a particular piece of land in the wrong way should remain to be decided between an official and the farmer. But it is not a question between an official and the farmer. It is a question between the district committee, selected as being representative of the best farmers in the area, whatever the level may be—and the level is bound to differ in various parts of the country according to the standards of farming—and the individual farmer. I am prepared to take the view of the committee as to whether a farmer is or is not farming his land in the best possible way.
The question, however, does not end there. The hon. Member asks for a court of appeal. In the ordinary course of events the question of the farming of a particular piece of land comes before the district committee and then the executive committee, in turn, considers their report. The farmer has the right of going to the executive committee and asking for his case to be reconsidered. If there are any new circumstances the executive committee gives consideration to them, and I find that they are always prepared to reconsider their previous decision in the light of any new circumstances. But even where the committee adhere to their previous decision that is not the end of the


story, because no farmer can be dispossessed without my consent. In every single case of dispossession the executive committee has to put up a sound case to me. Therefore, there is, in effect, a court of appeal. The urgent thing at the present moment is to get more food production, and to get it as quickly as we can, and the great objection I have to a court of appeal is that it would result in very long delays. If you had a court of appeal you would be bound either to have it composed of men who did not know the district or to have it composed of different farmers in the same district, and they being good farmers presumably, you would come to the same result. Therefore, there is no case at all for a court of appeal.

Mr. Granville: I am not suggesting an alternative scheme; I am suggesting that we should amend the present scheme so as to make it practicable and bring in all these farmers to help food production. The right hon. Gentleman appoints a local committee, but I have letters from farmers in my constituency—which I am prepared to show him—which show that they have to deal with an official. There is correspondence between his Department, the county war executive committee, the district committee and the farmer. In each case it is not the local committee but an official they are dealing with and it is that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to change.

Mr. Hudson: One of the first things I did after I had made a tour of the country when I was first appointed to the Ministry was to say to the various committees that I thought it would be a good thing to strengthen and assist their district committees by appointing in each district a technical officer to help them in the work of coming to decisions in the light of the best knowledge. In a great number of cases the local farmers are assisted by an official, and it can equally be said that the official is assisted by the farmers. This helps to give a further independence of view on the whole question. The hon. Member asked how the farmers can find resources. He ought to know, since he represents an agricultural constituency, of the existing schemes which are available to farmers. They can obtain credit from the bank in unlimited quantity, if they are worthy of

it; and if they are not creditworthy, they can go to the county committee and get assistance under the Agricultural Requisites Scheme. Failing that, the committee can do work for them. It is nonsense to say that they cannot get resources. The only time when a man is turned out is when, clearly, he is the sort of man who will not do the work, will not obey the orders given to him, and will not make use of the resources. He is the hopeless fellow, and rightly he is turned out. If the hon. Member will read the Report of the Select Committee—

Mr. Granville: I have read it.

Mr. Hudson—: he will see that one of its most pertinent paragraphs states that if any complaint could be made about the committees and their action, it was that they had been too lenient in the past and had not turned enough men out.

Mr. Granville: In certain districts.

Mr. Hudson: According to the report of the Select Committee, that applied throughout the country. They went on to say that so dire is our need at the present moment that the committees must utilise their powers without any regard to the hardship inflicted on individuals. I hope the hon. Member will study that. Let me now turn to the sort of cases that are commonly brought up. One of such cases was in Warwick. One of the farming newspapers has been giving a good deal of prominence to the cage of a farmer who was dispossessed by the War Agricultural Committee in Warwickshire. Indeed, the newspaper went so far as to suggest that the hon. Member for Eye was going to raise the case to-day. What are the facts? This man was turned out by the Warwickshire Committee. He asked the Warwick branch of the National Farmers' Union to take up his case, but they refused to do so. He then went to the Rugby branch and asked them to take it up. They proceeded to do so. On 4th April a report was published of a meeting of the county branch of the National Farmers' Union to the following effect:
We formed a deputation to the War Agricultural Executive Committee….I do not think anyone can dispute it, and I say that in my candid opinion that farm was not being cultivated in the country's best interests

Mr. Granville: Is that a newspaper report?

Mr. Hudson: It is a newspaper report, and it is confirmed by what was said in a report from my Land Commissioner who was present at the meeting between the deputation of the county branch of the National Farmers' Union and my War Agricultural Committee, when the deputation agreed that the war agricultural executive committee had acted correctly in terminating the tenancy. Their only complaint was that it ought to have terminated it last Michaelmas instead of now. It is quite clear that the committees, taken as a whole, are exercising their powers carefully and well. The hon. Member suggested that I should overhaul their membership. I have in a great number of cases obtained alterations in the composition of the committees, and their personnel is under continuous review. Taking it by and large, they have done a good piece of work for which this House and the country should be grateful. There has been more voluntary work done in this industry than in any other industry, and I think we should be very grateful for it.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: An important point has been raised, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has tried to deal with it. I do not think he has dealt with it fully, although I agree that time is short. This is a matter of such great importance, that I hope the House may have the opportunity, on another occasion, of developing it further, than we have been able to do to-day. I am acquainted with farming more particularly in Wales. In that part it is mostly hill farming, which has been affected very much. There are, undoubtedly, cases of very great hardship among the small farmers in the hill districts in Wales. No doubt there are bad farmers there, as everywhere else, but there are also very good farmers. My right hon. Friend has quoted a glaring case, and stated that an appeal was made to him by the county agricultural committee.
I have raised a case in connection with one farmer I know, and I will give one illustration to the House of a rich farmer. He did not farm for his living, and had other interests which made him quite free from financial anxiety. He was told to cultivate 46 acres in a hill farm in a

county with which I am acquainted. In view of his experience in the last war, he had found that cultivation on that land was disastrous. He had cultivated some barley, which had never been profitable, and some wheat at the request of the agricultural committee. The result was that the grain was condemned as unfit for consumption. He took the view, quite rightly, that, after 30 years on this farm, the land was uncultivable. What is the result? He writes many letters to me, and I told him the best thing he could do was to ask the county executive officer to meet him. He did so with the result that the figure of 46 acres was reduced to six. That justifies the attitude which has been taken by this particular farmer. He was a man with resources behind him, but what about the small farmer in the hills?
Many of these farmers had not the facilities, perhaps have not the inclination or do not know how to secure access to the agricultural committee executive. I fully realise that the process of appeal is a difficult, and possibly a delayed one. I would not go so far as my hon. Friend, but some form of appeal might be allowed. These committees are undoubtedly doing splendid work. I do not know any class of war-workers who do so much voluntary work involving so much time and travel. Would it not be possible in many cases for the chairman to be a paid whole-time man, and would it not also be possible for them to get additional officers? In many areas, they allocate land for production without inspection owing to the difficulty of covering the ground. If my right hon. Friend would meet the point I am sure he would gain what we all want, not so much a yardstick of acreage under the plough but crops. That is the test after all, the food that is actually grown. You might have thousands of acres cultivated which are not growing the crops and the land would be wasted. Co-operation is vital. The old adage of taking a horse to the water is appropriate in this case. In many cases you cannot make the farmer do what he does not think it right to do on his own holding about which he has intimate knowledge.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: It is said "Needs must when the devil drives." I will not suggest that the Minister is the devil, but he is driving, and in this matter he is perfectly right. The plough will hurt no land,


and, if we are to have better and better crops, we must have more and more ploughing. I want to appeal for more help for the hill farmer. We can get much more food from the hills, which constitute a large proportion of the area of the country. Many of them ought to be ploughed. But hill land is usually stony and requires much more ploughing than good land. It also possibly requires liming if it is to produce good crops. We

have had two months of continuous frost in the last winter and no one could stick a plough into land 800 or 1,000 feet up.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

The House adjourned for the Easter Recess.